BCC Minutes 07/26/2005 R
July 26, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, July 26, 2005
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Derek J ohnssen, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
II",
"
".. .. '~
.-=
AGENDA
July 26, 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. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
Page 1
July 26, 2005
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING 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 today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. June 8, 2005 - BCC/LDC Meeting
C. June 14, 2005 - BCC/Regular Meeting
D. June 15,2005 - BCC/Budget Hearings
E. June 16, 2005 - BCC/Budget Hearings
F. June 20,2005 - Value Adjustment Board Meeting
G. June 28, 2005- BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) Jose McGee, Road Maintenance
2) Francis Millot, Bureau of Emergency Services
Page 2
July 26, 2005
3) David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Department
B. 30 Year Attendees
1) William Spencer, CDES Engineering
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating August 1-5, 2005 as Collier County Fire Fighters
Appreciation Week. To be accepted by Melissa Pfeffer, Program
Coordinator, Muscular Dystrophy Association; Matt Zaleznik, Golden Gate
Fire Department; Brian Wertz, North Naples Fire Department; Bill Warren,
City of Naples Fire Department; and Matt Johnson, East Naples Fire
Department.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Jeanne Nadeau, Code Enforcement
Investigator as "Employee of the Month" for July 2005.
B. Presentation by Jim Lushine, Warning Coordination Meteorologist, and
Rusty Pfost, Chief Meteorologist for the Miami Weather Service Office
regarding StormReady.
C. A presentation of a brief overview of "Operation Concerted Effort" a
disaster exercise conducted by the Department of Emergency Management
on May 5, 2005.
D. Presentation of the 2005 Collier County Citizen Survey by the
Communication and Customer Relations Department.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition Request by Mr. Richard J. Salem, Esquire, to discuss
Oakhaven Apartments, Limited Partnership; Extension of "Deferred or
Waived" Impact Fees.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m.. unless otherwise noted.
Page 3
July 26, 2005
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item has been continued to the October 11~ 2005 BCC Meetin2.
This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. CU-2004-AR-6384
Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovahs Witnesses, represented by Mike
Landy, of Landy Engineering, Inc. requesting a Conditional Use in the
Estates zoning district for an additional church building pursuant to Table 2
of Section 2.04.03 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The
proposed Conditional Use will replace the existing CU-96-12 (E) Ordinance
Number 97-440. The new church building is proposed to be 4,400 square
feet. The property consisting of 5.15 acres, is located at 3480 Golden Gate
Boulevard S.W., Tract 81, Golden Gate Estates Unit No.4, in Section 11,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Naples, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. This item continued from the June
28~ 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. 200113 (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as
amended), repealing a portion of 974201, and replacing same in 974-401(a);
amending Article IV pertaining to the affordable housing provisions to
eliminate provisions for waiver of impact fees for affordable housing;
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 bv Commission members. PUDZ-2004- AR -6631,
Big Bear Plaza CPUD, Norman Taylor, represented by Kelly Smith, of
Davidson Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) zoning
district to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning
district for low intensity transitional commercial land uses, convenience
commercial land uses and intermediate commercial land uses. The subject
property, consisting of 5.46 acres, is located at the northeast corner of the
intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard, within
Page 4
July 26, 2005
Section 5, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
C. This item to be heard at 3:00 p.m. This item reQuires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission members. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5998: Collier County Board of
County Commissioners, represented by Coastal Engineering Consultants,
Inc., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to
Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) for a project
previously known as the Bembridge PUD, to change the name to the
Bembridge Emergency Service Complex PUD, amend the previously
approved PUD document and Master Plan to show a change in use from
residential development and a church or a nursing home, to allow
development of community facilities to include an Emergency Management
Operations Center, other government facilities, and an existing Elementary
School. The project consists of 39.82:1:: acres and is located on Santa Barbara
Boulevard, north of Davis Boulevard, in Section 4, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
D. This item to be heard at 5:00 p.m. Recommendation to approve an
Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 92-60 relating to Tourist Development
Taxes, as amended, for the increase of 1 % to the Collier County Tourist
Development Tax to be dedicated 100% to marketing, advertising and
promotion and related language changes.
E. This item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. This petition reQuires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission members. PUDA-2005-AR-7085: The Public Utilities
Division and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners,
represented by Bruce Tyson, AICP, of Wilson Miller, Inc., are requesting an
amendment to the Orangetree PUD Document and Master Plan to change the
tract designation of approximately 216 acres from Agriculture to Public
Facility and Community Use. The primary use of the Public Facility portion
of the property will be to locate water treatment and water reclamation
facilities. The Community Use portion will be used primarily for park use
and a recycling collection center. The amendment will also correct an
unintended tract designation error on the Master Plan. The subject property
is located in the northeast portion of the Orangetree PUD. Access to the
property will be from lmmokalee Road using the same road as that for the
Collier County Fairgrounds, in Sections 11 and 14, Township 48 South,
Page 5
July 26, 2005
Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
F. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation that the Board
establish a Municipal Services Benefit Unit pursuant to a petition of property
owners to fund the restoration of the lake between 1 07th Avenue North and
1 08th Avenue North and improve stormwater management for surrounding
properties.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Tourist Development Council.
B. Appointment of members to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
C. Appointment of members to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
D. Appointment of member to the Health Facilities Authority.
E. Request Collier County Board of Commissioners approve the opening of the
2005 Cycle I Growth Management Plan Amendments. (Commissioner
Coletta)
F. Discussion regarding The Haldeman House. (Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Fiala)
G. Discussion regarding FEMA Floodplain Mapping Project. (Commissioner
Coletta)
H. Discussion regarding the Operational Efficiency and Effectiveness Study
Workshop tentatively scheduled for November 9,2005. (Commissioner
Halas)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing the borrowing of an
amount not to exceed $40,000,000 from the Pooled Commercial Paper Loan
Program of the Florida Local Government Finance Commission pursuant to
the loan agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the
Commission in order to finance the acquisition of the Caribbean Gardens
property; authorizing the execution of a loan note or notes to evidence such
Page 6
July 26, 2005
borrowing; agreeing to secure such loan note or notes with a covenant to
budget and appropriate legally available non-ad valorem revenues as
provided in the loan agreement; authorizing the execution and delivery of
such other documents as may be necessary to effect such borrowing; and
providing an effective date. (Michael Smykowski, Director, Office of
Management and Budget)
B. Recommendation to adopt the proposed millage rates as the maximum
property tax rates to be levied in FY 2006. (Michael Smykowski, Director,
Office of Management and Budget)
c. Recommendation to award a contract to McDonald Transit to provide
consolidated management for the Collier Area Transit and the Paratransit
System as identified in RFP #05-3845 and to allow staff to negotiate a
contract. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
D. Recommendation to approve construction of a sewer force main to change
service for the Collier County Government Center from the City of Naples
to the Collier County Sewer District, Project number 52005 with an
estimated fiscal impact of $1 ,650,000.00. (Jim DeLony, Administrator,
Public Utilities)
E. Recommendation to approve a Developers Contribution Agreement (in the
amount of approximately $845,000) with Target/Kite Realty Group to
finalize the exact size, location and design details for the I-75 on ramp at
lmmokalee Road. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
F. Recommendation to approve Contract Amendment No.2, Exhibit E, for a
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of $20,646,800 under Contract No. 04-
3576, Construction Manager at Risk Services for Courthouse Annex and
Parking Garage, with Kraft Construction Company, Inc. for the construction
of the Courthouse Annex floors 1-4, Phase I, project number 52533. (Skip
Camp, Director, Facilities Management)
G. Recommendation to Approve Selection of Qualified Firm and A ward a
Contract Under ITN 05-3583 "CEI Services for Collier County Road
Projects" for Project No. 60005 "Goodlette Frank Road, from Golden Gate
Parkway to Pompei Lane in the amount of$I,195,286. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
Page 7
July 26, 2005
H. Recommendation to award Bid #05-3849 to D. N. Higgins, Inc. and approve
the necessary budget amendment for the 12th Avenue Interconnect Booster
Pumping Station in the amount of$I,083,000, Project Number 71006. (Jim
DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Valencia
Golf and Country Club - Phase 2", approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security
2) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfactions of Lien for
payments received for the following Code Enforcement actions; Alma
Walker & Ardis Walker Estate, Resolution 92-64, Resolution 94-642,
Resolution 91-130; Park East Dev. Ltd Resolution 2005-04; Alfonse
& Greta Bottino, Resolution 2003-04, Resolution 2003-05, Resolution
2003-06; Adela Miazga Resolution 95680; Jesus Gomez, Resolution
2004-148; Priscilla Caffa-Mobley Et AI., Resolution 2005-17;
Priscilla Caffa-Mobley, Eddy Washington, Stephanie Davis &
Tammy Fletcher, Resolution 2005-45, Morris Thomas, Resolution
2005-67; Evans & Marie V o1cy, Resolution 2005-59; Tsalach
Page 8
July 26, 2005
Investments, LLC., Resolution 2005-58; Valerie S. Tausch,
Resolution 2004-274; Paul Riddleberger, Jr., Resolution 200140;
Alfredo & Maria Silva, CO 2004100318; John & Susan Quartucci,
CO 2004071165; Danialle Steed, CE 0267; Jason & Christina Sellers,
2005030953; Peter C. Amidon TR., 2005040615; Fatima Cagran,
2004020181; Stuart McFetridge, SO 146425; Christy Patenaude &
Gabriel DeRose, CO 2005010210; Daniel Ryan, CO 2004120585;
Jesse Siongco, SO 109953; Frank Grehl, CE 0154; Elima St. Louis,
CO 2005030615; Raymond Daly, CE 1287; Philip Ryder, CE 1456;
Norman Erickson, CE 0337; Craig Bartholow, SO 146799; Alan &
Inez Moniz, CO 2005020316; Donald Roberts, Jr., CO 2005010855;
Martha Lee Johnson, CEB 2004-77; Alexis Palomeque, CEB 2005-
03.
3) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of "Islandwalk Phase One".
The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Veteran's Park Commons.
5) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment recognizing the
Fiscal Year 2006 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) entitlement funding, State Housing Initiatives
Partnership Program (SHIP) allocation and corresponding budgets.
6) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
"Veronawalk Phase 3B", approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security
7) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of
$400,924 to recognize and accept three (3) grant agreements from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for
2004 Continuum of Care funding and authorizing the Chairman to
sign the three grant agreements.
8) Recommendation to approve the application by Sano and Associates,
Incorporated, dba High Velocity, for the Job Creation Investment
Program, the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program
Page 9
July 26, 2005
and the Fee Payment Assistance Program.
9) Recommendation to approve an application for participation in the
Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program by Hole
Montes, Incorporated.
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept the
Annual Report on the activities related to the Job Creation Investment
Program, the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment
Program, the Property Tax Stimulus Program, and the Fee Payment
Assistance Program.
11) Recommendation to approve the application by Training and
Manufacturing Institute, Incorporated for the Job Creation Investment
Program and the Fee Payment Assistance Program.
12) Recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing expenditure of
funds for Collier County Planning Commissioners to attend seminars,
workshops, and conferences related to their duties.
13) Recommendation to approve an application for participation in the
Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program by NCH
Healthcare System, Incorporated for three (3) site locations.
14) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of
$39,900, transferring funds from Impact Fee Revenue to Impact Fee
Operating Expenses, within Fund 131, for the payment of expenses
related to the Fire Protection Impact Fee Update Study and the
Educational Facilities Impact Fee Update Study.
15) Recommendation to approve a Special Cycle to amend the Collier
County Land Development Code, primarily for the purpose of: 1)
adding a provision for the reclamation of excess intensity from
developments that have achieved a built out status with less than the
permitted number of dwelling units; 2) adding Transfer of
Development Rights (TDRs) bonus provisions; 3) clarifying TDR
Credit usage in association with the development of stand alone golf
courses and residential golf course projects; and, 4) modifying some
Rural Village development standards.
Page 10
July 26, 2005
16) Recommendation to approve the execution of a conditional grant
agreement with Big Cypress Housing Corporation, per the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
recommendations, in order to retain 2003 HOME Investment
Partnerships Program funds for the development of the Eden Gardens
affordable housing complex.
17) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County
Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development-related review and
processing fees as provided for in Code of Laws Section 2-11.
18) Recommendation to approve Resolution 05-_ accepting the attached
Audubon Country Club PUD Bald Eagle Management Plan to replace
the existing 1991 and 2001 Management Plans.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to grant easements to Florida Power & Light
Company over nine parcels owned by Collier County.
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the transfer of
property from the Florida Department of Transportation to Collier
County for public purpose. Estimated fiscal impact: $27.00.
3) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$80,000.00 for Engineering Consulting Services for Stormwater
Improvements within the Palm River Country Club Lane Area
(Project No. 510074).
4) Recommendation to approve Adopt-A-Road Agreements three (3) for
the following: Arlene's At Your Service, Liz Appling-Florida Home
Realty and Palmetto Ridge High School JROTC.
5) Recommendation to approve the purchase of right-of-way parcels 114
and 714 which are required for the expansion of Collier Boulevard
project 65061. Total fiscal impact: $146,587.82.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
Page 11
July 26, 2005
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving a Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) Standard form Utility Work
Agreement regarding Collier County relocating its utility facilities
necessitated by FDOT widening ofI-75 (State Road 93) from North
of Golden Gate Parkway to South of Bonita Beach Road, Projects
70045 and 73045.
2) Recommendation to approve a BA to transfer funds in the amount of
$490,000 from the Collier County Water-Sewer District Operating
Fund (408) Reserve for Contingencies to cover unanticipated
operating expenses in the SCRWTP Cost Center.
3) Recommendation to approve Purchase of a Truck with Hydraulic
Crane for the Water Department from Atlantic Truck Center in the
amount of $173,829 per State Contract #070-700-322.
4) Recommendation to authorize the Amendment of professional
engineering services agreement with Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. for the
South County Regional Water Treatment Plant 8 MGD Reverse
Osmosis (SCRWTP), Contract 98-2891, in the amount of$88,560 and
extend the time up to December 1, 2005, Project 70054.
5) Recommendation to approve Work Order HS-FT-05-04 with Hazen
and Sawyer, P.C., in the amount of$185,930 for professional
engineering services related to the North County Regional Water
Treatment Plant (NCRWTP) Well Field Reliability Program, Projects
71006 and 71011.
6) Recommendation to reject all proposals submitted in response to RFP
#02-3382, "Commercial Source Separated Organic Waste and
Biosolids Processing and Beneficial Use" Project Number 73127
7) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$69,000 for the transfer of funds from the Collier County Water-
Sewer District Operating Fund (408) Reserve for Contingencies to
cover unanticipated operating expenses in the Wastewater Reuse Cost
Center.
8) Recommendation to approve a Right-of-Way Consent Agreement and
associated Memorandum with Florida Power & Light Company
Page 12
July 26, 2005
permitting the construction of raw water transmission mains and
related facilities, within Florida Power & Light Company power-line
right-of-way, from the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant
to the vicinity of Rattlesnake Hammock Road for the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant Reverse Osmosis Wellfield
Expansion to 20-MGD, at a cost not to exceed $50.00, Project
Number 708921.
9) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3778 to Hannula Landscaping,
Inc. for the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF)
Landscaping Improvements in the amount of$182,665.00, Project
Numbers 73077, 739501, and 739502.
10) Recommendation to approve Work Order VC-02-30 under Contract
02-3349, in the amount of$197,100 to WM. J. Varian Construction
Company, Inc. to effect repairs to the reclaimed water storage tank at
the South County Water Reclamation Facility, Project 74031.
11) Recommendation to approve amendment No.3 to Work Order No.
GH-FT -02-9; Contract 00-3119; Professional Utilities Engineering
Services Agreement with Greeley and Hansen LLC for the Design and
construction of the Santa Barbara Sewer Force Main Interconnect
between the North and South Wastewater Collection Systems,
Projects 73132 and 73151, in the amount of $87,040.
12) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3867 for the purchase of an Itron
Mobile Collection System to Hersey Meters Company, in the amount
of $33,000.00, for the Utility Billing and Customer Service
Department.
13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the County Manager to execute a budget amendment transferring
appropriations from reserves in the Mandatory Trash Collection Fund
(Fund 473) to operations for payment to the County's trash collection
franchisee haulers for services provided to curbside customers who
received Certificates of Occupancy after October 1, 2004. Fiscal
impact is $125,200.00.
14) Recommendation to approve the necessary Budget Amendment and to
approve a purchase order to Angie Brewer and Associates, L.C. in
Page 13
July 26, 2005
amount of $228,094.64 under Sarasota County Contract 2003040 for
Loan Procurement Services from Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) for Project No. 701582,2005 Well
Replacement Program (Tamiami Well No. 34) and Project No.
710061,2004 NCRWTP RO Wellfield Reliability (Lower Hawthorn
RO Wells 18N, 19N and 20N.
15) Recommendation to approve a final Change Order to Contract 00-
3171 with MWH Americas, Inc. for additional time and a deductive
amount of ($687,560.82), and approve any necessary budget
amendments for the South County Water Reclamation Facility 16
MGD Expansion Project 73949.
16) Recommendation to reject all proposals received under RFP #05-
3813, "Professional Services to Develop County Water and
Wastewater Master Plans, with Rate Structure and Impact Fee
Studies," Project Nos. 700704 and 730664.
17) Recommendation to approve second contract under RFP #00-3129 for
the standardization of an automatic meter reading system with AMCO
Water Metering Services, Inc. in the estimated amount of $2,000,000.
($500,000/year for 4 years)
18) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager to execute a
budget amendment moving funds from the Mandatory Trash
Collection Fund Reserves to the Mandatory Trash Collection Fund
Operations for citizen outreach, education and advertising costs
associated with the implementation of the new trash collections
franchisee agreements. Fiscal impact is $283,658.00 from Reserves in
Fund (473).
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3840 to multiple vendors for
purchase and delivery of arts and crafts supplies for Parks and
Recreation programs at an estimated annual expenditure of $50,000.
2) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of a State of
Florida Department of Transportation Grant to the Collier County
Metropolitan Planning Organization for the 2005 Transportation
Page 14
July 26, 2005
Enhancement Program to begin the Restoration of Observation Car
#6602 at the Naples Depot Transportation Museum in the amount of
$243,400
3) Recommendation to accept a Let's Talk About It: Jewish Literature
grant from the American Library Association for a series of book
discussion programs for $1,500.
4) Recommendation to apply to the Florida Developmental Disabilities
Council, Inc. for an Inclusive Summer Recreation Grant to fund
training of camp counselors for children with special needs in an
amount not to exceed $100,000.
5) Recommendation to approve a Florida Recreation Development
Assistance Program Grant Agreement for $200,000 for development
of North Collier Regional Park.
6) Recommendation to approve conveyance of three Easements to
Florida Power & Light Company for providing electric service to
North Collier Regional Park on Livingston Road, at a cost not to
exceed $157.75, Project 806021.
7) Recommendation to grant a Deed of Conservation Easement to the
South Florida Water Management District for the Vanderbilt Beach
Parking Garage at a cost not to exceed $45.00, Project 90295.
8) Recommendation to award Work Order #VC-02-34 in the amount of
$63,429 to Wm. J. Varian Construction Co., Inc. for the purchase and
installation of new filters for the swimming pool at Immokalee Sports
Complex.
9) Recommendation to reject Bid No. 05-3824 for Phase II
Improvements to Eagle Lakes Community Park.
10) Recommendation to recognize and budget an additional $96,029
authorized by the State Aid to Library Program for Collier County
Public Library.
11) Recommendation to approve the attached resolution and accept
$500,000 donation ofW. R. Rose Foundation, for the construction of
Page 15
July 26, 2005
a meeting room at the Marco Island Branch Library.
12) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign the contract with
Innovative Interfaces, Inc., for a Library automation system, at a cost
of $268,845.
13) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
$14,500 in revenue from the sale of live bait at Caxambas Park and
approve a modification in the amount of $10,000 to Purchase Order
#4500035141 with Naples Wholesale Bait.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting in
their capacity as Trustee of the GAC Land Trust, approve and execute
a Right-of-Entry to enable the drilling of public water supply
test/production and monitor wells on Unit 14, Tract 127, Golden Gate
Estates.
2) Recommendation to convey a Utility Easement for a wastewater
master pump station and a public water supply well site with its
associated pipeline on property dedicated within the Heritage Bay
PUD at an estimated cost not to exceed $53.50, Project 730791 and
Project 710061.
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for the conveyance of
GAC Trust Reserved Land to the Collier County Parks & Recreation
Department for a Neighborhood Park for the residents of Golden Gate
Estates.
4) Recommendation to ratify additions to, modifications to and deletions
from the 2005 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan made from
March 24, 2005 through June 30, 2005.
5) Recommendation to approve a confined space gas monitoring system
for the water, wastewater and risk management departments.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to increase the
FY04-05 Fleet Management Fund (521) operating budget
Page 16
July 26, 2005
expenditures and associated revenues by $60,000.
7) Recommendation to approve an agreement with Collier County
District School Board for the 2005 Driver Education Grant Program.
8) Recommendation to approve submittal of four grant requests to the
Big Cypress Basin/South Florida Water Management District for FY
06 funding.
9) Recommendation to approve submittal of two grant applications for
Harvard University's Innovations in American Government Award.
10) Recommendation to award ITQ #05-3657 - "Project Management
Oversight Services" to CH2MHill, PBS&J, Johnson Engineering,
URS, Construction Dynamics Group, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Malcolm
Pirnie, Quattrone and Heery International.
11) Recommendation to approve a $121,732 change to Contract #03-
3489, "Professional Architectural and Design Services for Addition to
And Renovation of The Golden Gate Library", with Barany Schmitt
Summers Weaver and Partners, Inc. (BSSW) to modify the scope to
design a separate building rather than an addition, Project 54261.
12) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
13) Recommendation to approve Contract #05-3850, "Collier County
Government Center Architectural/Engineering Services", with Spillis
Candela & Partners, Inc.
14) Recommendation to approve a $214,797.50 change to Contract #03-
3448, "Professional Architectural and Design Services for Collier
County Emergency Services Complex", with Harvard Jolly to address
scope changes with the design, Project 52160.
15) Recommendation to approve a $58,875 change to Contract #02-3422,
"Professional Architectural Services for New County Fleet Facility",
with Disney & Associates, P .A. to modify the scope to initiate the
potential design of a Collier Area Transit Facility, Projects 52009 and
Page 17
July 26, 2005
35010.
16) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$535,000 to fund the payment of Workers' Compensation and
reinsurance expenses through the end of Fiscal Year 2005.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Board ratification of Summary, Consent and Emergency Agenda
Items approved by the County Manager during the Board's scheduled
recess. Per Resolution Number 2000-149, "Approval of this
Agreement by the County Manager is subject to formal ratification by
the Board of County Commissioners. If the decision by the County
Manager is not ratified by that Board, this Agreement shall be
enforceable against Collier County only to the extent authorized by
law in the absence of such ratification of that Board."
2) Recommendation to approve a Services Contract between Live Oak
Production Group and Collier County to produce a documentary on
the Western Everglades, called "The Big Cypress Swamp" in an
amount not to exceed $40,000.
3) Recommendation to seek formal competition to hire a state lobbyist to
represent Collier County in Tallahassee.
4) Approve Budget Amendments
5) Recommendation to approve a Disaster Mutual Aid Agreement
between Collier County and multiple public and private
emergency/disaster response agencies.
6) Recommendation to approve Memorandums of Understanding
between Collier County and multiple public and private disaster relief
and assistance agencies.
7) Recommendation to approve an annual contract for $97,500 with The
Ferguson Group for federal lobbying services.
8) Recommendation to approve and transmit Senate Bill 360 Glitch
Amendments as provided by Collier County government staff to the
Page 18
July 26, 2005
Collier County Legislative Delegation, the Florida Senate Committee
on Community Affairs and the Florida House Committee on Growth
Management, and the Florida Association of Counties.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Final status report to the Board of County Commissioners from the
Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee, sun setting
June 26, 2005.
2) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
attended a dinner hosted by Raymond James & Associates, Inc.,
Bryant Miller & Olive P.A., The PFM Group, and Wells Fargo
Corporate Trust Services at the Florida Association of Counties
Annual Conference in Tampa, Florida on June 21, 2005. $45.00 to be
paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
3) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
attended a dinner hosted by Waste Management, Inc. at the Florida
Association of Counties Annual Conference in Tampa, Florida on
June 22, 2005. $15.33 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel
budget.
4) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
attended a evening reception hosted by Waste Management, Inc. at the
Florida Association of Counties Annual Conference in Tampa, Florida
on June 22, 2005. $17.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel
budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous correspondence to file for record with action as
directed.
Page 19
July 26, 2005
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners serve as
the local coordinating unit of government in the Florida Department
of Law Enforcement's Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant, approve the Sheriffs Office
grant application, authorize acceptance of the grant award, and
approve associated budget amendments.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, April Circle, Ltd., for Parcel Nos. 146/746 in the amount
of$222,755 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. April Circle, Ltd.,
et aI., Case No. 04-3679-CA (Immokalee Rd. Project 66042). (Fiscal
Impact $34,090.65 - if Offer accepted)
2) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Winterview Court II Master Association, Inc. for Parcel
No. 137 in the amount of$10,000.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et aI., Case No. 04-3632-CA
(Immokalee Rd. Project 66042). (Fiscal Impact $3,013.00 - if Offer
accepted)
3) Recommendation to approve the Offer of Judgment in the amount of
$171,700.00 as to Parcel 139 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Edward Stanley Sanditen, et aI., Case No. 02-5165-CA (Immokalee
Road Project No. 60018). (Fiscal Impact $18,669.00--ifOffer is
accepted)
4) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, G. Herbst, for Parcel No. 113 in the amount of
$95,760.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. G. Herbst, et aI.,
Case No. 02-5138-CA (Immokalee Road Project 60018). (Fiscal
Impact: $23,910.00 - if Offer accepted)
5) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Mary H. Wagner, for Parcels 106 & 806 in the amount of
$611,472.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Tree Plateau Co.,
Inc., et aI., Case No. 03-0519-CA (Immokalee Road Project 60018).
Page 20
July 26, 2005
Fiscal Impact: $146,626.76 - if Offer accepted).
6) Recommendation that the Board approve, and authorize its Chairman
to execute, a License Agreement to Use County Boat Ramp with the
current owner of 4220 22nd Street NE, Naples, Florida.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and Ex Parte
Disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDEX-2005-AR-
7501, Livingston Lakes PUD; Section Thirty Corporation, LLC, owner of
the Livingston Lakes PUD, represented by Dwight Nadeau, ofRW A, Inc.,
requesting a 2-year PUD Extension from February 23,2004 (date the PUD
sunsetted) to February 23, 2006. The subject property, consisting of 46.73
acres, is located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately Y4 of a
mile south of Immokalee Road, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item reQuires that all participants are sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VROW2005-AR7786 to disclaim, renounce and vacate
the County's and the Public's interest in the east 20 feet of the 50-foot wide
parcel for road right-of-way along Smallwood Drive (formerly S.R. No. 29)
which was dedicated to Collier County by operation of law as set forth in 9
95.361.(2) F.S., located in Section 31, Township 53 South, Range 30 East
(Chokoloskee Island).
Page 21
July 26,2005
C. An ordinance amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code (LDC), to correct a scrivener's error in
Ordinance No. 05-27 due to an unintended revision to LDC section 10.03.05
- to correctly provide notice within 500' of property for certain public
hearings before the Board of Commissioners, the Collier County Planning
Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Environmental Advisory
Council, and the Historic and Archeological Preservation Board; and by
providing for an effective date.
D. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida adopt an Ordinance amending the Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, 2001-13, as amended, which is Chapter
74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, to provide for a
change in the maximum home sales price for participation in the
"Immokalee Residential Impact Fee Deferral Program" from $175,000 to
$254,250 which is also the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP)
limit for Collier County, in order to allow for more effective utilization of
the program by qualified applicants.
E. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-
6279, Dominic P. Tomei, President of Restoration Church, Inc., and
Timothy J. Crane, manager of Bucks Run Developers, LLC., represented by
William L. Hoover, AICP of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., and as
president of Catalina Land Group, Inc., the manager of Bucks Run Estates,
LLC, requesting a rezone from the "PUD" to Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) known as Bucks Run MPUD for property located
approximately 700 feet north of Vanderbilt Beach Road on the eastern side
of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida.
F. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution revising the Collier County Water-
Sewer District Utilities Standards Manual.
G. Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County Florida, adopting Collier County's
Potable Water Wells Facility Plan, dated June 2005; and authorize the
County Manager or his designee to submit this Plan to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
Page 22
July 26, 2005
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 23
July 26, 2005
July 26, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Board of County Commissioners'
meeting is now in session.
Will you please stand for the invocation by County Manager Jim
Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Heavenly Father, we come to you today as a
community thanking you for the blessings that you have so generously
provided. Today we are especially thankful for the dedicated elected
officials, staff, and members of the public who are here to help lead
this County as it makes the important decisions that will shape our
community's future.
We pray that you will guide, lead, and direct the decisions made
here today so that your will for our County would always be done.
These things we pray in your holy name, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please join us in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Manager, you want to go over any changes to the agenda,
please?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I normally -- normally go to the County
Attorney, but I'll do this first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's on the phone right now.
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, July 26,2005, and welcome back.
The first item is item 2F. It should read June 20, 2005, Value
Adjustment Board meeting, and that's at staffs request.
Page 2
July 26, 2005
The next item is item 16A2. The listing of Philip and Anna
Maria Marrone was omitted from the agenda index title but was
included in the actual backup information, and that change is also at
staff s request.
The next item is item 16A14. The dollar amount on the agenda
index indicates $39,900. The correct amount is $39,990 as indicated
in the executive summary, and that change is at staff s request.
The next item is to move item 16A15 to 101. That is a
recommendation to approve a special cycle to amend the Collier
County Land Development Code primarily for the purpose of: One,
adding a provision for the reclamation of excess intensity from the
developments that have achieved a build-out status with less than the
permitted number of dwelling units; number two, adding transfer of
development rights, TDRs, bonus provisions; number three, clarifying
TDR credit usage in association with the development of stand-alone
golf courses and residential golf course projects; and four, modifying
some rural village development standards, and that item is being
pulled at Commissioner Coletta's request.
I also sent you last night a copy of Professor Nicholas' letter back
to Commissioner Coletta that he asked to -- that you received
yesterday.
Next item is to move item -- excuse me. The next item
Commissioner Henning has asked that it stay on the consent agenda,
and that is item 16C9. So if you would just cross that off your list.
There is no 10K. The next -- at least at that point there's no 10K.
The next item is to move item 16F8 to 10J, and that is a
recommendation to approve and transmit Senate Bill 360 glitch
amendments as provided by Collier County government staff and
discuss during our workshop, to the Collier County legislative
delegation, the Florida Senate Committee on community affairs, and
the Florida House Committee on growth management, and the Florida
Association of Counties. That item is being moved to the regular
Page 3
July 26, 2005
agenda at Commissioner Coletta's request.
The next item is item 16D9. Under considerations, second
paragraph, third sentence, should read: This amount is over 100
percent, rather than 50 percent, greater than the engineer's estimate
and budgeted funds.
The recommendation should read: That the Board of County
Commissioners reject bid number 05-3824 for phase two
improvements to the Eagle Lakes Community Park and authorizes the
County Manager to award a contract in an amount not to exceed
$300,000 for construction of the interactive water feature in the Board
of County Commissioner's absence in August, and that's at staffs
request.
The next item is item 1611. Mis -- miscellaneous correspondence
should read: County government productivity committee minutes of
May 18, 2005, rather than minutes of May 8, 2005, and that's at staffs
request.
The next item is to move item 1 7 A to 8G. This item requires that
all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members. It's PUDEX-2005-AR-7501, Livingston Lakes
PUD: Section Thirty Corporation, LLC, owner of the Livingston
Lakes PUD represented by Dwight Nadeau ofRW A, Inc., requesting a
two-year PUD extension from February 23, 2004, date the PUD
sunsetted, to February 23, 2006.
The subject property consists of 46.73 acres, is located on the
east side of Livingston Road approximately a quarter of a mile south
of Immokalee Road in Section 30, Township 48 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida, and that -- and that was requested by
Commissioner Halas.
The next item is 1 7F. We're asking that this item be continued to
the September 13, 2005, BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to
adopt a Resolution revising the Collier County Water/Sewer District
Utilities Standards Manual, and that's at staffs request.
Page 4
July 26, 2005
The next item is a note. Item 16E 1 o. These contracts should be
considered major -- and this is a note that needs to be put on the
record. These contracts should be considered major fixed assignment
agreements and will have a maximum initial contract amount of three
million per firm, and that -- and that clarification comment is at staffs
request on item 16E 1 o.
And then, Commissioner, you have a series of time certain items,
and I would ask the board's indulgence that I don't have to read each
one of these, okay --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good idea.
MR. MUDD: -- because I'll read them again before they do it.
But I'll go over the item number for each one of the people in the
audience, and then we will -- and I'll try to give you a generic subject
matter of the particular item and give you a time certain.
You have a series of time certain items. The first item is item 8A,
and that's to be heard at one p.m. today, and this is a particular item
that talks about affordable housing and making those provisions for it
at three percent in the change to our Ordinances.
The next item is item 8C, and this item will be heard at three
p.m., and that is the Bembridge PUD, the emergency services complex
item. Again, item 8C to be heard at three p.m.
The next item is item 8D, and that's to be heard at five p.m., and
that's basically a change to our TDC Ordinance to add a one-penny or
one percent for advertising so we'll be up to four percent as far as our
tourist tax is concerned. Again, that's 8D to be heard at five p.m.
The next item is item 8E to be heard at two p.m., and that's
basically PUDA-2005-AR-7085, and that's the Orangetree PUD
document, and it's basically zoning the 216 acres that was purchased
by Collier County as a public facility, and that's out there by
Orangetree where we were talking about our water and sewer plant,
our new water and sewer plant, along with a regional park for Collier
County. Again, that's item 8E, and that's to be heard at two p.m.
Page 5
July 26, 2005
Next item is item 8F, and that's to be heard at 11 a.m. this
morning, and that's basically a municipal services benefit unit for the
lake that's between Avenue 107 and 108 in Naples Park, and that was
a -- if you remember, Mr. Mooney came forward to the board back in
November and talked about this particular lake and its lack of
maintenance and they wanted to do something about it. So that's a
municipal services benefit unit.
Now, Commissioners, one thing I have to read on the record, and
it's the last page, so -- and that's so that we don't have to hear this on
the regular agenda, but I need to put this on the -- on the record so that
we can get the state revolving loan for this particular item.
This has to do with item 17G. Actions, it's -- this is open for a
public hearing.
And for the record, the purpose of this meeting on this item is to
discuss the adoption of the Collier County's potable water wells
facilities plan. Once adopted, the County may avail itself of low cost
SRF, state revolving funds, to construct the proj ects contained within
the plan, specifically Tamiami well number 34, and Hawthorne
reverse osmosis wells 18 through 20.
The intent is to add new wells in a phased program to replace
existing wells consistent with the 2003 update to the water master plan
update adopted by the board on May 24,2004.
In order to maintain production, capacity, reliability, and system
flexibility, additional raw water supply wells need to be built.
Alternatives considered were no action, which was rejected due
to the need to improve reliability and constructing the wells at other
locations, which was rejected due to additional transmission costs.
There are no negative environmental impacts anticipated to be
caused by the proposed projects.
The recommended actions are consistent with the Collier
County's Comprehensive Plan and support the County's intent to
secure maximum eligibility for funding all anticipated raw water
Page 6
July 26, 2005
supply construction proj ects utilizing the low cost funding available.
The public purpose is to save rate payers approximately $2.5
million by using a 20-year low-interest state revolving funds loan
versus a 20-year bond at current market rates. Collier County is
seeking loan funding in the amount of $8,700,000.
The current rate structure is sufficient to absorb the debt for this
proj ect.
State recommended action: The council is requested to -- excuse
me. The commission is requested to approve -- you might be the
water/sewer council on this, but commission/council is requested to
approve the Resolution adopting the facilities plan immediately
following this public hearing.
That's all I have, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about solicitation of public
comments on this? That was included. Is that necessary at this point
in time?
MR. MUDD: If there is anyone that has public comment on this
particular item --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In that case, if there's anyone who has
public comment on this particular petition concerning potable water
wells facilities plan, then please raise your hand and come forward
and speak about it.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I see no public comment.
County Attorney, now I think it's your turn.
MR. WEIGEL: Jim's pretty much discussed the whole agenda. I
think we're pretty well set to go. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Then I will ask for
comments by the Commissioners in order, starting with Commissioner
Halas.
I would appreciate any comments, changes to the consent and
summary agenda, as well as ex parte expos -- disclosure for the
Page 7
July 26, 2005
summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not yet, not yet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only items that I have for the
summary agenda is the item 17 A that's been moved to the original
agenda. I do not have any disclosure on any other parts of the
summary agenda, and I don't have -- I do not have anything else to be
pulled from the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, and good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only thing I have to do is
declare on the summary agenda item E that I have had meetings and
correspondence with. Other than that, as far as the consent agenda
goes, the items that I had concerns on have been pulled.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too, have had
correspondence, meetings, and e-mails regarding 17E, which is the
Bucks Run PUD, and I would also like to pull item 16D9, which is the
Eagle Lakes Community Park. I'd like to have more information on
that, please, just to understand better what's really going on there.
MR. MUDD: Sure. That's item -- that will be item 10K.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No ex parte on today's summary
agenda and no -- or no other changes to today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have no further changes to
today's agenda, and I do have ex parte disclosure. I've had meetings
Page 8
July 26, 2005
and correspondence concerning item 17E.
Is there a motion to approve today's regular, consent, and
summary agenda as amended?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is approved unanimously.
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Julv 26,2005
Item 2F should read: June 20, 2005 - Value Adjustment Board Meeting. (Staff's request.)
Item 16A2: The listing of Philip & Anna Maria Marrone was omitted from the Agenda Index
title, but was included in the actual backup information. (Staff's request.)
Item 16A14: The dollar amount on Agenda Index indicates $39,900. The correct amount
is $39,990, as indicated in the Executive Summary. (Staff's request.)
Move Item 16A15 to 101: Recommendation to approve a Special Cycle to amend the Collier
County Land Development Code, primarily for the purpose of: 1} adding a provision for
the reclamation of excess intensity from developments that have achieved a built out
status with less than the permitted number of dwelling units; 2) adding Transfer of
Development Rights (TOR's) bonus provisions; 3} clarifying TOR Credit usage in
association with the development of stand alone golf courses and residential golf course
projects; and, 4} modifying some Rural Village development standards. (Commissioner
Coletta's request.)
Move Item 16C9 to 10K: Recommendation to award Bid #05.3778 to Hannula Landscaping,
Inc. for the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) Landscaping Improvements
in the amount of $182,665, Project Numbers 73077, 739501,739502. (Commissioner
Henning's request.)
Move Item 16F8 to 1 OJ: Recommendation to approve and transmit Senate Bill 360 Glitch
Amendments as provided by Collier County government staff to the Collier County
Legislative Delegation, the Florida Senate Committee on Community Affairs and the
Florida House Committee on Growth Management, and the Florida Association of
Counties. (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Item 1609: Under Considerations. 2nd oaraaraoh, 3rd sentence should read: "This amount
is over 100% (rather than 50%) greater than the engineer's estimate and budgeted funds."
The Recommendation should read: "That the Board of County Commissioners rejects Bid
No. 05-3824 for Phase II Improvements to Eagle Lakes Community Park and authorizes the
County Manager to award a contract in an amount not to exceed $300,000 for construction
of the interactive water feature in the BCC's absence in August." (Staff's request.)
Item 1611: Miscellaneous Correspondence should read: "County Government
Productivity Committee Minutes of May 18, 2005" (rather than Minutes of May 8, 2005.)
(Staff's request.)
Move Item 17 A to 8G: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and Ex Parte
Disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDEX -2005-AR-7501, Livingston
Lakes PUD: Section Thirty Corporation, LLC, owner of the Livingston Lakes PUD,
represented by Dwight Nadeau of FWA, Inc., requesting a 2-year PUD Extension from
February 23, 2004 (date the PUD sunsetted) to February 23, 2006. The subject property
consisting of 46.73 acres is located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately %
of a mile south of Immokalee Road, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner Halas' request.)
Item 17F continued to the September 13. 2005 BCC meeting: Recommendation to adopt a
Resolution revising the Collier County Water-Sewer District Utilities Standards Manual.
(Staff's request.)
Note:
Item 16E10: These contracts shall be considered major fixed assignment agreements and
will have a maximum initial contract amount of $3 million per firm". (Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 8A to be heard at 1 :00 p.m.: 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 ~74-401(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; providing for an effective date.
Item 8C to be heard at 3:00 p.m. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5998; Collier
County Board of County Commissioners, represented by Coastal Engineering
Consultants, Inc., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to
Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) for a project previously known
as the Bembridge PUD, to change the name to the Bembridge Emergency Service
Complex PUD, amend the previously approved PUD document and Master Plan to show a
change in use from residential development and a church or a nursing home, to allow
development of community facilities to include an Emergency Management Operations
Center, other government facilities, and an existing elementary school. The project
consists of 39.82 +/- acres and is located on Santa Barbara Boulevard, north of Davis
Boulevard, in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Item 80 to be heard at 5:00 p.m. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending
Ordinance No. 92-60 relating to Tourist Development Taxes, as amended, for the increase
of 1% to the Collier County Tourist Development Tax to be dedicated 100% to marketing,
advertising and promotion and related language changes.
Item 8E to be heard at 2:00 p.m. This petition requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-2005-AR-7085; The
Public Utilities Division and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners,
represented by Bruce Tyson, AICP of WilsonMiller, Inc., are requesting an amendment to
the Orangetree PUD Document and Master Plan to change the tract designation of
approximately 216 acres from Agriculture to Public Facility and Community Use. The
primary use of the Public Facility portion of the property will be to locate water treatment
and water reclamation facilities. The Community Use portion will be used primarily for
park use and a recycling collection center. The amendment will also correct an
unintended tract designation error on the Master Plan. The subject property is located in
the northeast portion of the Orangetree PUD. Access to the property will be from
Immokalee Road using the same road as that for the Collier County Fairgrounds in Section
11 and 14, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
Item 8F to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation that the Board establish a Municipal
Services Benefit Unit pursuant to a petition of property owners to fund the restoration of
the lake between 107th Avenue North and 1 oath Avenue North and improve stormwater
management for surrounding properties.
Collier County
Potable Water Wells Facilities Plan
PUBLIC HEARING
Item 17G
DATE: 7/26/2005
Actions:
1) Open the Public Hearing
2) State the below for the record:
"The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the adoption of the Collier County's
Potable Water Wells Facilities Plan. Once adopted, the County may avail itself of
low-cost SRF funds to construct the projects contained within the plan,
specifically, Tamiami Well #34 and Hawthorn RO Wells 18-20.
The intent is to add new wells in a phased program to replace existing wells
consistent with the 2003 Update to the Water Master Plan Update, adopted by
the Board on May 24, 2004.
In order to maintain production capacity, reliability, and system flexibility,
additional raw water supply wells need to be built.
Alternatives considered were 'no action' which was rejected due to the need to
improve reliability and constructing the wells at other locations, which was
rejected due to additional transmission costs.
There are no negative environmental impacts anticipated to be caused by the
proposed projects.
The recommended actions are consistent with Collier County's Comprehensive
Plan and support the County's intent to secure maximum eligibility for funding all
anticipated raw water supply construction projects utilizing the lowest cost
funding available.
The public purpose is to save ratepayers approximately $2.5 million by using a
20-year low-interest State Revolving Funds (SRF) loan versus a 20-year bond at
current market rates. Collier County is seeking loan funding in the amount of
$8,700,000
The current rate structure is sufficient to absorb the debt for this project".
3) Solicit Public Comments
4) State Requested Action:
"The council is requested to approve the resolution adopting the Facilities Plan
immediately following this Public Hearing".
5) Close the Public Hearing
July 26, 2005
Items #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F & #2G
THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 8, 2005, BCC/LDC MEETING; THE
JUNE 14,2005, BCC REGULAR MEETING; THE JUNE 15,2005,
BCC BUDGET HEARINGS; THE JUNE 16,2005, BCC BUDGET
HEARINGS; THE JUNE 20, 2005, VALUE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD MEETING; AND THE JUNE 28, 2005, BCC REGULAR
MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Now we'll take a motion to approve the following minutes: June
8, 2005, BCC/LDC meeting; June 14, 2005, BCC regular meeting;
June 15,2005, BCC budget hearings; June 16,2005, BCC budget
hearings; June 20, 2005, value adjustment board special master's
meeting; and June 28, 2005, BCC regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could just interrupt.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Remember there was a change to 2F. It's a value
adjustment board meeting, not a special master's meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That change is noted. I presume
that is included in your --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 10
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #3A & #3B
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now we move to service awards.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, do you want to do it from where you're at
or do you want to come down and do it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we come down there --
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- since we have several of them.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the first service award is in the
20-year category, and the first recipient is Jose McGee from road
maintenance.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Jose, thank you for your service
here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Keep up your good work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: See, now you get your picture taken.
MR. MUDD: Yes. Now you get your picture taken. Thank you.
MR. McGEE: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Jose. Appreciate it.
Next 20-year recipient -- and when he had his goatee and
mustache, he looked a lot older. But our next 20-year recipient is
Page 11
July 26, 2005
David Weeks from Community Development's Environmental
Services, comprehensive planning.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Stick around another 20 years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hope you do. You do good
work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Immokalee boy done good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, really.
MR. MUDD: David, if we could get your picture.
Thank you, David.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 20-year-recipient is Frank Millot from
the Bureau of Emergency Services.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Congratulations.
MR. MILLOT: Twenty years certainly goes fast.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The next 20 years will be even
faster.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't know we've had EMS
around that long.
MR. MUDD: Congratulations. Get your picture, please.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Frank. We appreciate it.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next recipient or the next
category is 30 years -- yes, sir, you can't have it. The next recipient is
Bill Spencer from Community Development's Environmental
Services, engineering, 30 years.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you very much
Page 12
July 26, 2005
for your service. Let me know what's in the box.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulation for 30 years of
dedicated service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nice to meet you. I've been
hearing great things.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Bill. Congratulations. That completes our
awards.
(Applause.)
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING AUGUST 1-5,2005 AS
COLLIER COUNTY FIRE FIGHTERS APPRECIATION WEEK-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 4,
proclamations, and it's 4A. It's a proclamation designating August 1
through 5, 2005, as Collier County Firefighters Appreciation Week, to
be accepted by Melissa Pfeffer, program coordinator, Muscular
Dystrophy Association; Matt Zaleznik, okay, Golden Gate --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Zaleznik.
MR. MUDD: Help me, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Zaleznik.
MR. MUDD: Zaleznik, all right, Golden Gate Fire Department;
Brian Werts from the North Naples Fire Department; Bill Warren
from the City of Naples Fire Department; Matt Johnson, the East
Naples Fire Department.
All those ladies and gentlemen, if you'd come forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whereas, the -- fighting fires is
one of the most hazardous professions requiring physical strength,
Page 13
July 26, 2005
stamina, extensive training courage and self-concern for the welfare of
the citizens; and,
Whereas, the additional -- to their daily services to the
communities, firefighters throughout the state and across the nation
have joined the Muscular Dystrophy Association for the past 45 ( sic)
years in the fight against neuromuscular diseases; and,
Whereas, Florida firefighters collected over $1.2 million over the
last 30 -- in over 300 communities within 2004, Fill The Boot
campaign for MDA, again, making the MDA the largest source of
funding; and,
Whereas, the funds collected by the Collier County firefighters
assist MDA in providing medical services at local clinics, summer
camps, research grants, support groups, and public education seminars
at no cost to the local children and families; and,
Whereas, in honor of the efforts of Collier County firefighters,
the Muscular Dystrophy Association is sponsoring the Collier County
Firefighters Appreciation Week; and,
Whereas, the appreciation for all Collier County citizens to join
in MDA in the tribute to our firefighters.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, that Florida -- I'm sorry -- that August 1 st
through August 5, 2005, be designated as Collier County Firefighters
Appreciation Week.
Done in this order -- day of -- the 26th of July, 2005.
Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 14
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is approved unanimously.
Congratulations, and thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: You want to say a couple words at the
microphone, please?
MR. ZALEZNIK: Just on behalf of the firefighters, I'd like to
thank the commission for their support in changing the Ordinance that
we worked on to allows us to do the Fill the Boot. You know, it's a
great success. We're having more departments go out and collect.
I had the opportunity to go to MDA summer camp last week as a
counselor, and it's quite a life-changing experience to see what these
folks have to go through.
I'd just like to thank the Commissioners for all their support and
all the departments and chiefs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: In addition to that, we'd also like to
thank the citizens of Collier County, because this wouldn't be possible
if it wasn't for their generosity, opening up their wallets and filling our
boots on the street corners every year, and we look forward to many
more years for this to come. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks.
(Applause.)
MS. PFEFFER: And on behalf of the MDA, I'd also like to thank
you for changing the Ordinance. We raised over $40,000 with the
change in Collier County last year. It means a lot to our programs to
keep them up and running. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #5A
Page 15
July 26, 2005
RECOGNIZING JEANNE NADEAU, CODE ENFORCEMENT
INVESTIGATOR AS "EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH" FOR JULY,
2005 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: The next item, Commissioner, is -- we're under
paragraph 5, presentations, and SA, it's a recommendation to
recognize Jeanne Nadeau, Code Enforcement investigator, as
employee of the month for July 2005, and if we can have Jeanne come
up, please.
On June 3, 2003, Jeanne Nadeau filed a property inspection
report that listed -- come on up, come on up, don't be bashful --
inspection report that listed deplorable conditions and many code
violations on a particular property.
All of this was within the scope of her position and could have
ended there; however, she was aware of the situation of the owner and
took it upon herself to see what assistance might be available to her.
Jeanne contacted the Financial Administration and Housing
Office, then asked about rehabilitation assistance available to
low-income clients.
The Financial Administration and Housing office was then
contacted by the owner's representative who procured an application
and helped her client complete it.
The client was accepted into the single-family rehabilitation
program in December of 2003. Her home was a mobile home, and it
needed a great deal of work. Although Jeanne closed her case file the
moment the application was accepted into the SFR program, Jeanne
continued to be involved.
She visited this site and enlisted deputies to watch the property
while work progressed. She worked hand in hand with other
departments in the County, such as permitting, building inspections, et
cetera, to ensure a smooth transition.
Jeanne has been an invaluable resource for the Financial
Page 16
July 26, 2005
Administration and Housing department. She knew the client had
limited income and limited capability to cope with various situations,
and she went the extra step to ensure the client's safety and well being.
That client is about to receive a newly renovated home, and Jeanne
Nadeau should be acknowledged for her efforts in this matter.
I present to you, Commissioners, the Employee of the Month of
July 2005, Jeanne Nadeau.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Jeanne, you need to get a picture. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Jeanne.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
PRESENTATION BY JIM LUSHINE, WARNING
COORDINATION METEOROLOGIST, AND RUSTY PFOST,
CHIEF METEOROLOGIST FOR THE MIAMI WEATHER
SERVICE OFFICE, REGARDING THE STORMREADY
PROGRAM -PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the second
presentation, and that's 5B. It's a presentation by Jim Lushine, the
Warning Coordination Meteorologist, and Rusty Pfost, the Chief
Meteorologist for the Miami Weather Service Office regarding
StormReady.
MR. ZYVOLOSKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. I'm Rick Zyvoloski, Emergency Management
Department. I do want to introduce also Rusty Pfost, Meteorologist in
charge of Miami Weather Service, and Jim Lushine, for the
presentation.
Page 1 7
July 26, 2005
MR. PFOST: Commissioners and Mr. Chairman, it's always
good to be over here on the Gulf side, especially today for the
recertification of Collier County as StormReady.
You may already know Americans live in the most severe
weather-prone country on Earth. Each year Americans cope with an
average of 10,000 thunderstorms, and Florida is the thunderstorm
capital; 2,500 floods; 1,000 tornadoes; as well as an average of six
deadly hurricanes.
Potentially deadly weather impacts every American. Some 90
percent of all presidentially-declared disasters are weather-related,
leading to around 500 deaths per year and nearly 14 billion in damage.
The National Weather Service has a program called StormReady.
It started in 1999 in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to help arm America's
communities with the communications and safety skills needed to save
lives and property before and during the event.
StormReady helps community leaders and emergency managers
strengthen local safety programs, and I do want to say that you have
one of the best Emergency Management programs in the State of
Florida, and certainly one of the best that I've ever worked with here
in Collier County.
Now, the person who handles our StormReady program in South
Florida is Jim Lushine, and he is our Warning Coordination
Meteorologist in the weather forecast office in Miami.
Jim is about to retire here in two months, so we won't be seeing
him again, but he has some things he wants to say. Thank you very
much.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Rusty.
MR. LUSHINE: Thank you. And good morning. It's a pleasure
to be here to publicly acknowledge the work that the Collier County
Emergency Management Office has done here to help make the
people, the citizens here in Collier County, storm ready.
Just recently here, the last couple of weeks, we had, of course,
Page 18
July 26, 2005
Hurricane Dennis that came very close to Collier County. We were in
very close contact with the Emergency Management officials. They
did a great job in communicating the risk here in Collier County.
Of course, last year we had Hurricane Charley that came very
close, and I'm sure there will be, unfortunately, other situations here
where we need to keep in close contact, and so the StormReady
program is that type of program that establishes a close coordination
between the National Weather Service and local Emergency
Management Offices.
Collier County's been a leader here. It's been the first County
here in main -- in South Florida that's been recognized as StormReady
back in 2005 (sic). This is the first County in South Florida that's been
re-recognized as StormReady here in 200 -- I'm sorry, 2002 was the
original recognition now, and 2005 is a re-recognition of Collier
County.
And they have done everything they needed to do to continue
their re-recognition, including having 14 ways of getting the
information from the National Weather Service to the office here,
another 14 ways of communicating that information to the public at
large, and having had various programs and stuff that they can alert
the people here in Collier County to the types of situations that are
possible here that could cause a problem.
So on behalf of the local StormReady board, we've unanimously
approved Collier County as being re-recognized as storm ready, and
we'd like to make a presentation to Rick as the representative here for
the Emergency Management Office.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to do it up here?
MR. LUSHINE: Yeah, that would be fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can get pictures of you.
MR. LUSHINE: Congratulations, Rick.
MR. ZYVOLOSKI: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the sign say, Rick? All
Page 19
July 26, 2005
right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now if we'd only get a hurricane.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hey, watch it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think we ought to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't wish for anything.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They don't even have lightning
there; do they?
MR. LUSHINE: No, they don't, they have Tsunami and other
kinds of stuff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But no lightning in Alaska.
MR. LUSHINE: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations for you, too. Good
work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank, sir.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, Rick.
Item #5C
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF "OPERATION CONCERTED EFFORT",
A DISASTER EXERCISE CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT - PRESENTED
Commissioner, the next presentation is presentations -- it's
paragraph 5C. The presentation is a presentation of a brief overview
of Operation Concerted Effort, and that was a disaster exercise
conducted by the department of Emergency Management and with
our other communities, emergency responders, on May 5,2005.
Joe Frazier will present from the Emergency Management
Offices.
MR. FRAZIER: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Commissioners, for
allowing me this opportunity. I have a brief PowerPoint presentation
I'd like to show you all.
Page 20
July 26, 2005
Once again, good morning, Commissioners, ladies and
gentlemen. For the record, my name is Joe Frazier. I'm the Homeland
Security Coordinator for the Department of Emergency Management.
My purpose this morning is to provide you with a short briefing
on a full-scale Countywide bioterrorism mass casualty exercise that
we accomplished on the 5th of May.
Emergency Management has always believed in prior planning
prevents poor performance and that education, training and practice
are paramount to ensure that operational capabilities at all levels in
response to any disastrous event are at their absolute best.
We collectively work together so that we can better protect our
citizens; therefore, our department became the lead agent in
developing a strategic exercise working group. The premise behind
the formation of this group is to eliminate duplication of efforts,
reduce costs of manpower and man-hours, take full advantage of the
training offered through these exercise, and more importantly, to
develop a one-, three-, and five-year strategic exercise plan.
Our first endeavor was Operation Concerted Effort, and it proved
to be a huge success for many reasons; however, first and foremost,
we were able to partner with and form some very strong relationships
with many of our fellow public and private safety entities.
Planning and design for an event of this magnitude began in
December of 2004. And during the entire process, we not only
determined what our capabilities are as the Emergency Management
Department, but we formed a better understanding of what the
resources were available to us through mutual aid, and we also helped
bridge many of the communication gaps that, if left unattended, could
create even greater disasters than the ones that we are fighting.
As you can see we had over 30 agencies participating: Naples
Airport Authority, City of Naples Police, Collier County Mosquito
Control District, American Red Cross, department of health. Many of
the fire districts were available and participated. We had the National
Page 21
July 26, 2005
Transportation Safety Board, FAA, and the transportation security
administration, which is a department of the homeland security.
Some of the participating agencies from the evaluation side we
chose as a group to go outside the County and look for evaluators
from Lee County, Martin County, and a few other agencies so we
could get a better perspective of what we did right, what we did
wrong, and areas to improve upon.
The scenario itself involved three phases. The first phase
involved an aircraft landing at Naples Airport. They blew a tire, ran
across the median, and they crashed into a DC-3 aircraft. That's where
our mass casualty scenario began.
Phase two involved our hospitals. We wanted to exercise the fact
that there's going to be a surge in ER capacity in mass casualty. We
also threw a twist in here. On our last bus transport to Cleveland
Clinic, we threw a terrorist in there. We got some great footage of
that. More importantly, this allowed Cleveland Clinic to exercise their
decontamination procedures and processes. Something that they have
never done before.
Phase three involved our district response team, which is a team
made up of firefighters from different departments, EMS, Sheriffs
office. This is a team that deals basically with HAZ- MAT spills. They
do investigation to try to find out where and where -- where and how
these -- these scenarios and these risks came from.
We were very fortunate to involve our local volunteers through
our community emergency response team. They were marvelous in
what they did. They helped us out tremendously. As you can see, we
try to make it as realistic as possible to exercise our EMS folks and
our hospitals.
Scene preparation involved hiring a vendor that actually came
down with a simulator aircraft. We actually set it up three days prior
to so we had all our firefighting districts that came in, worked the
issues, tried to help extinguish the fire, did assessments, and it really
Page 22
July 26, 2005
aided their new firefighters in the fact that they learned how to deal
with aircraft incidents.
The initial response came from the fire -- or the airport fire
department. They are first to arrive on scene. They enacted their
mutual aid agreements. And first responders came from East Naples.
That department arrived on scene. They became the incident
commander at the time. They assisted in putting out the fire, and the
fire loomed for about 30 minutes, so everybody got good practice as
far as putting things out.
Incident command is something else that we really wanted to
exercise and test. For those of you who aren't familiar, we've been
using incident command since 1970. It's a command and control
structure that sets up an organizational chain of command, if you will.
Weare in the process, as we speak, of adopting the National
Incident Management System. This is a system that has been directed
by President Bush through presentational directive five. We wanted to
test the capabilities and see how far they would take the NIMS, the
National Institute Management System approach versus incident
command, and they did rather well.
Mutual aid response. Our EMS folks, their main goal was to
practice tracking patients. The state has also adopted a new triage and
tracking system. It's not implemented fully. We decided to go ahead
and use it as best we could, and it gave us a heads-up the next time
that we have to go out and do some triage. More importantly, it
allowed the hospitals out there to coordinate with us and work this
new system.
NCH response was marvelous. They were onboard and
cooperative from -- throughout the -- from the very beginning.
Once again, we tried to make it as realistic as possible so they
could use -- utilize their treatment facility. More importantly, to see
what their surge capacity is when we brought an influx of patients.
Cleveland Clinic. This is an opportunity to deal with the
Page 23
July 26, 2005
decontamination. They did a marvelous job. During transport, we
notified them that we were coming with a biohazard scenario. They
changed gears in a heartbeat, set up their tent and were ready to go
upon arrival.
This is a tent that they use to run the patients through to take the
contaminants off. It's a -- ran them through the wash and rinse cycle,
that way they could actually take them into the ER and provide
treatment.
That basically concludes our exercise concerted effort, but I do
want to express the fact that we are continuing this working group. We
appreciate any support that the County can give to us.
I want to draw your attention to the 28 September date. It's a
department of homeland security alert system exercise, given the fact
__ in light of what's happening over in England. Weare bringing in
the FBI, the Florida domestic task force, security task force, FDLE,
and all kinds -- and the rest of our group, we're going to sit down and
we're going to develop some strong plans, or enhance the plans that
we have in place, to make sure that if this ever happens in Collier
County, that we're going to be alert and we're going to be ready.
Thank you for the opportunity. If I can answer any questions, I
surely would.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions from board members?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I asked him to give this
presentation because it didn't get much coverage, okay, and, oh, by the
way, there are a whole lot of people that came together to do this
work, this process, to do this exercise, to make sure that they basically
worked out their plans and they were ready to go.
It was a magnificent exercise that included our major hospitals,
all our EMS, fire departments, and they did a good job. They learned
a lot of things, and they're taking those lessens learned and they're
putting -- and they're making changes in order to make it even better,
but I thought it was an opportune time to make sure that our public
Page 24
July 26, 2005
knew that our emergency responders are prepared for just about
anything that happens in Collier County, and they needed to know
about the success of this particular operation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good. Thank you very much.
Good report.
MR. FRAZIER: Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Mr.
Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Joe.
Item #5D
PRESENTATION OF THE 2005 COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN
SURVEY BY THE COMMUNICATION AND CUSTOMER
RELATIONS DEPARTMENT - PRESENTED
The next presentation is 5D, and it's a presentation of the 2005
Collier County Citizens Survey by the communications and customer
relations department, and John Torre, your department director, will
present.
MR. TORRE: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm here today to
make a brief presentation on the citizens survey and to answer any
questions you may have regarding it. The survey was conducted at
the end of May and early June.
First, I'd like to introduce Cynthia Dobbins. She's the president
of Above Water Public Relations and Marketing, and that's the firm
here from Naples that conducted the survey for us.
MS. DOBBINS: Good morning, Chairman Coyle,
Commissioners. I am Cindy Dobbins, president of Above Water
Public Relations and Marketing. Our agency is on contract with
Collier County since last April to provide public relations and
marketing services for the County.
The scope of services for this particular project was to conduct a
Page 25
July 26, 2005
telephone survey Countywide of the -- of all the residents, both
registered and non-registered voters. Respondents were randomly
selected. We chose about 100 people from each of the districts and
provided the results, asking questionnaires.
The County Commissioners really are to be applauded for taking
this step. As a public relations practitioner here, many people skip
over the research part and think that they know what all of their
customers as thinking and go ahead with their communications plan,
so this was a very good step that you've taken.
The survey also gave us an opportunity to compare results. I
understand that you also did a survey in 2002.
As John said, we conducted the interviews May 23rd to June 3rd.
We made 7,000 phone calls -- that was due to the seasonality of this
area -- to obtain the 512. The interviews lasted 12 to 14 minutes. We
qualified by head of household, male or female, people needed to be
over 18, permanent or seasonal resident, and they could not work for a
research company or for Collier County government.
We asked 52 questions, including one open-ended question,
which asked people to provide an area of County government that
most needed improvement, and the questionnaire was developed by
working with the County's office of communications and customer
relations as well as the County Manager's office by identifying issues
that we felt were most important in determining public opinion about
County government.
I'll let John Torre provide you with the results. Thank you.
MR. TORRE: Thank You, Cindy.
Initially we compiled the demographic data from the people we
interviewed. We did 512 interviews, as Cindy mentioned. And,
again, about 100 of those interviews were conducted in each
Commissioner district.
And because of the timing of the survey, 95 percent of the people
responding identified themselves as year-round residents.
Page 26
July 26, 2005
The question, how long have you lived here, we found that just
over 43 percent indicated they had moved here within the last 10
years, since 1996. Seven percent identified themselves as lifelong
residents.
The age demographics. Fifty-two percent identified as 55 years
of age and older. District 1 had the highest percentage of residents 65
and older, at 47; and District 5 had the lowest, at 15 percent.
The two-person household is the most common in Collier
County. Forty-five and a half percent of the residents in the County
live in a two-person household.
And then unemployment status, 44 percent identified themselves
as employed full time. Districts 3 and 5 had the highest percentage of
full-time workers, at 55 and 52 percents. District 1 had the highest
percentage of retired residents at 56 percent, and District 5 the lowest,
at 14 percent.
The first question -- this is actually -- this question was asked
near the end of the survey after they had gone through most of the
other questions, but it's a question that generally is a benchmark
question used in many surveys, local and national surveys.
Generally speaking, are things moving in the right direction or
wrong direction in Collier County, and 62 percent of the respondents
said right direction, about 22 percent said wrong direction, and the rest
had no opinion.
And then this -- the numbers on this question generally
correspond to the previous one as far as job performance. Generally
speaking, do you agree or disagree the County officials do a good job
running County government, and 54 and a half percent agreed with
that statement.
Question -- we read the following statement, the property taxes
you pay are generally fair in relation to the value of the benefits
received. Do you agree or disagree? And nearly 70 percent agreed
with that statement.
Page 27
July 26, 2005
Would you pay more in property taxes? Seventy-one percent said
yes for construction and needed roads and bridges and sidewalks.
Only 23 percent responded no to that particular statement.
Forty-eight percent said yes for more paramedics and
ambulances; 31 percent said no on that question. Forty-three percent
said yes to expand the CAT system, the public bus transportation
system; 37 percent said no.
Forty-three percent said yes to acquire more land for beach
access and parking, and on that question, 48 said no.
Thirty-five percent said yes for more landscaping of streets, and
on that question 57 percent said no. Thirty-four percent said yes for
more Code Enforcement inspectors; 49 said no on that particular
statement; and 29 percent said yes for more Sheriffs deputies, and 54
percent said no on that particular statement.
In evaluating existing services, we asked if they agreed or
disagreed with these statements. Garbage collection and recycling of
trash seems to be working well. Ninety-three percent agreed; only six
percent disagreed. Ninety percent agreed with the statement overall
appearances of neighborhoods and shopping areas is good; only six
percent disagreed.
Eighty -one percent agreed the sewage system works well in my
neighborhood; only six percent disagreed with that statements, the rest
were -- had no opinion.
Eighty percent agreed reclaimed water should be a major goal of
our conservation policy; only six percent disagreed with that
statement.
Sixty-nine percent agreed stormwater drainage works well in my
neighborhood; only 25 percent disagreed with that statement.
Sixty-seven percent agreed roads and highways are well
maintained; 29 percent disagreed.
Fifty-eight percent agreed the County's done a good job acquiring
and preserving land for recreation and environmental protection; 23
Page 28
July 26, 2005
percent disagreed.
And 56 percent agreed that traffic signals keep the cars moving,
and 37 percent disagreed with that statement.
On particular County services, library services, 86 percent are
satisfied with the library services; only two percent were dissatisfied.
Seventy-three percent satisfied with parks and recreational
facilities; six percent dissatisfied.
Sixty-seven percent satisfied with emergency ambulance service,
and 30 percent are satisfied with Collier Area Transit. But I noted on
this the 54 percent no opinion mark. Only 16 percent said they were
dissatisfied. I think this is just an indication of the people who used
the bus system.
Beaches and beach access, would you pay $10 annual fee for a
beach parking sticker if the money was used to expand and improve
parking and maintenance operations, and on this question 61 percent
said yes; 31 said no. The highest yes percentage was in District 5 at
73 percent, and the lowest yes percentage was in District 1 at 48
percent.
Yes or no on this question. There is currently an adequate
amount of beach access locations and beach parking? Forty -- 35
percent said yes; 46 percent -- about 46 percent said no. The highest
no percentage was in District 2 at 54 percent.
Would you use a park and ride shuttle service? Thirty-eight
percent said yes; 54 percent said no on this particular question. District
1 -- District 5 had the highest yes percentage on this question at 63,
and District 1 has the lowest at 20 percent.
Seventy-nine percent say beaches are clean and well maintained;
only three percent said no to that question.
Forty-nine percent said beaches provide adequate rest rooms,
picnic areas and foods and beverage; 23 percent said no, and 28
percent on that particular question said they did not know.
On the room tax increase question, would you support a one
Page 29
July 26, 2005
percent increase in the room tax, 65 and a half percent said yes; almost
22 percent said no to that question, and those numbers were pretty
consistent across the five districts.
Policies and programs on affordable housing. Should the County
do more to acquire more workforce and affordable housing in the
County. Seventy-five percent agreed with that statement; only 11
percent disagreed.
Generally speaking, spending money to attract tourists to our area
during the off-season is a good idea. Fifty-four and a half percent
agreed; about 31 and a half percent disagreed; 14 percent no opinion.
Access to healthcare services in the County is a problem for the
average person. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
Forty -six percent agreed, about 37 percent disagreed, and 1 7 percent
had no opinion. District 5 -- Districts 5 and 3 had the highest agree
percentages at 58 and 51 percent.
The County should acquire more public boat launch and storage
facilities. Forty-eight percent agreed with that; 20 percent disagreed.
A large number had no opinion.
On the issue of hurricane preparedness, generally speaking the
County did a good job with preparing the community last year.
Seventy -eight percent agreed; eight percent disagreed; 13, almost 14
percent had no opinion.
Was the hurricane information provided by the County timely
and reliability? Seventy-six percent agreed, and just a small number,
six percent, disagreed.
Eighty-nine percent said local television or national TV was their
primary source. I think we were surprised by the number for The
Weather Channel; 67 and a half percent local TV, little over 17
percent weather, local radio, and so on and so forth, newspapers, the
government's channel, and then the County website.
On this question, this was the lengthiest question we asked as far
__ on the agree/disagree. We were trying to, on all of these questions,
Page 30
July 26, 2005
make them unbiased or as unbiased as possible.
We described the impact fees that are in place. And the last line
there, knowing that, should the County impose additional impact fees?
Thirty-seven percent agreed, 41 percent disagreed. Districts 2 and 4
had more agrees than disagrees, and Districts 1, 3, and 5 had more
disagrees than agrees on this particular question.
Managing our growth. The County commission's doing a better
job than it was five years ago; agree, about 32 percent; disagree, 40
percent; no opinion, 27 percent.
Is the County -- as a place to live, Collier County's better now
than it was five years? Forty-five and a half percent of the people
responding agreed with that statement; 32 percent disagreed.
Although, in District 5, the numbers were off the charts. It was 75 to
15 , agree/disagree on that particular question.
Overall job performance of the BCC: Good/excellent, 43; fair, 25
and a half; poor, eight percent; no opinion, about 23 percent.
And on this particular question, I think if the question was asked,
satisfied, dissatisfied, if you had divided fair in half and just split it up
between satisfied and dissatisfied, the numbers would correspond -- it
would be almost identical to the question we asked up front about
County officials doing a good job running County government. It
would be somewhere in the mid 50s.
And then the primary source of information about County
government, local newspapers ranked first at 47 percent, we had local
TV second, and I was happy to see Collier Government Television
placed third on this particular question.
And then the open-ended question we asked, we asked them at
the end of the survey, last question, can you identify for us a program
or proj ect that you believe most needs improvement here in the
County?
The number one answer was, I don't known and can't think of an
answer, which was 33 percent, but then following that was roads,
Page 31
July 26, 2005
traffic, housing, parks, medical, law enforcement, education,
environment, water and sewage, and then the economy and business.
And the final slide here is a -- some of these questions we did
repeat from the previous survey in 2002, and you can see most of
them, the numbers were pretty comparable to three years ago. The one
that jumped significantly was the last question. Generally speaking,
County officials do a good job running County government? On that
agree, the agree jumped 15 percent from three years ago.
And that's our disclaimer and our presentation. Any questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions from the board members?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commission Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. On the unemployment
rate, I honestly don't know the answer to this, but when you figure out
the percentage of unemployed, is that from the general workforce, or
is that from the general population?
MR. TORRE: Well, it's -- the sample was 18 and older, and we
weren't screening for registered voters, so it was adults 18 and older.
And the question is, what's your current employment status, and they
would either identify it as unemployed, retired, part-time work or
full-time work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So the unemployed was
from the general population?
MR. TORRE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that -- and part of the
survey is retired. So my whole thing is, I don't think that seven
percent is correct. Retired people aren't part of the workforce, so that
percentage should reflect the actual workforce that's out there that's
unemployed, not the retired people that are not unemployed.
MR. TORRE: True, but we separated them out as their own
block. There were about 36 percent--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, to help on that one a little bit, you
Page 32
July 26, 2005
know, I noticed that it said seven percent. Our number, based on the
other surveys from the business community is around four.
You know, the other thing is, when you call at home, who's
there? Who answers the phone? If it's the category 18 above, and if
you're unemployed, you're probably answering the phone. And so I
would think that probably our number would be a little bit skewed
based on who's answering the phone when you call.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Understood. The other one is--
MR. TORRE: I'm sorry. There's a margin of error here where,
you know, the next time if we did the exact same survey this week,
that number could come in much lower.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Speaking of a margin of error,
the question that was asked on the $10 fee for beach parking. Do you
think the results would be different if the question also included,
would you prefer $10 fee or the present arrangement where we have a
free beach pass issued to residents? Do you think the figures would be
different?
MR. TORRE: Well, sure. I mean, however you word the
question is going to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bingo, that's exactly what I'm
trying to point out.
MR. TORRE: But as I said--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, who wouldn't want
something for free?
MR. TORRE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who wouldn't want something
free?
MR. TORRE: Well, that's true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Except for the County's ethics
policy.
MR. TORRE: I would say, when we put this--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. If you ask the residents if they
Page 33
July 26, 2005
would prefer to have all these services without paying taxes, what do
you think the answer would be?
MR. TORRE: Probably 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you. Point taken.
MR. TORRE: But on that point, Commissioner, I would say that
when we compiled and put these questions together, it was actually
before a specific proposal was put forth by parks and rec. This has
been in the works for quite a while. But however -- you know, you
can word a question in --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And you can word the
question so that you get the desired answer sometimes, and parks and
recs. did the same thing with the survey they took from the residents
that were using the beaches.
They gave them two choices, or three choices. One was a
five-dollar-a-day fee to be able to use the beach parking, two was a
10-dollar yearly fee, or three was a 20 dollar, two-year fee. No one
ever offered the option of the status quo, no charge, and I'm just
pointing that out for reference.
But the way you ask the question, you'll get the desired answers
you want sometimes. Other than that, it's an excellent survey.
MR. TORRE: And I do think we made the effort to phrase these
questions in a way that were unbiased. I mean, CBIA took a lot of
heat on their particular survey because they were --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think I remember the way the
question was asked. It said, would you be willing to pay 10 dollars for
additional access to the beaches and for additional parking, I believe it
was also phrased in that question; am I correct?
MR. TORRE: Right. Would you pay a 10-dollar annual fee for
a sticker if the money was used strictly to expand and improve public
beach parking and maintenance operations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly, so --
MR. TORRE: But yes, Commissioner, you're right. I mean, the
Page 34
July 26, 2005
question -- and then it's the interpretation on the other end, too, how
the respondent is listening and hearing the question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, John. Thank you very much.
Good report.
MR. TORRE: Okay. Thank you.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. RICHARD J. SALEM,
ESQUIRE TO DISCUSS OAKHAVEN APARTMENTS, LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP; EXTENSION OF "DEFERRED OR WAIVED"
IMPACT FEES - TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE SEPTEMBER
27~ 2005 BCC MEETING
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph six,
which is public petitions, and the first item is 6A, which is a public
petition request by Mr. Richard J. Salem, Esquire, to discuss
Oakhaven Apartments Limited Partnership; extension of deferred or
waived impact fees, and Mr. Salem, if you could --
MR. SALEM: Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of the
Commissioner -- Commission, Colonel Mudd, staff, thank you for
having us here. I'm Richard Salem with the Salem law group here on
behalf of Oakhaven Apartments.
Before starting, I wanted to take a moment and thank you and
commend you, Commissioners. As a person with a disability, having
lost my sight as a teenager, your recognition of the MDA this morning
and good work that the firefighters are doing to help young people
make it through a transition in life is extraordinary work, and I don't
want the moment to go by without -- as a consumer of such assistance
at a young age -- saying thank you, and don't ever think that those
good deeds are unnoticed or unappreciated.
As we impart our request to you this morning, it's a significant
Page 35
July 26, 2005
morning, as we all know, as the space shuttle is poised to be launched
on the other coast, and we do wish the best for the astronauts. We also
hope it will be a significant day for over 150 families in Immokalee
that have had the benefit of low income/affordable housing for
migrant workers for the past 12 years or so.
In 1993 Oakhaven Apartments were built and have been in
service for migrant workers since then. In 1995, ownership and
control of the limited partnership changed, and at that point an
anomaly occurred.
We have for you this morning -- and we would request the Clerk
to enter in the record a briefing paper that outlines the considerations
here and a quick reference chart for you. Assisting me is Josh Korn
(phonetic) today, and also in the audience are a couple of fine folks
from the Immokalee community, Ms. Sherry Bennett and Dottie
Cook, who might take a moment and talk with you about the need, the
dire need for housing. And as the survey just pointed out, over 70
percent of our communities agrees with that need as well.
In any event, when the new general partner took over, there was
no indication on public record that could be found or in the
information provided indicating that an impact fee had been deferred
by the commission in 1993, and there are a couple of thoughts on that.
Number one, the minutes from your meeting then are somewhat
unclear as to whether the impact fee was to be deferred or waived.
And researching the topic, it is clear that this was one of the first
deferral or waiver agreements out of the box. It was something
relatively different at the time.
A IS-year agreement was approved by Resolution then for the
B&B Properties of South Florida, Inc. The owner of the property at
that time, B&B, Inc., had tried a couple of times to get it transferred to
Oakhaven Apartments, Limited, and in February, that transfer was
effectuated, and then we moved forward to September where an
agreement between B&B Properties, Inc., and the County with a
Page 36
July 26, 2005
notation on the property description as B&B Properties of South
Florida, Inc., no indication of Oakhaven Apartments, Limited, is noted
on the agreement.
And now as we look at possible change of ownership hands
again, maybe we were too careful in our investigation, but we
stumbled across the agreement and brought it to the attention of the
senior staff with the County, and since then have been trying to work
through a solution that is a win-win proposition for the property
owners, for the citizens of Collier County, and of no detriment, no
harm, to the County or its coffers.
And in that regard, Mr. Chairman, what we are requesting of the
Commissioner -- commission today is to provide the County Manager
with the authority to enter into an amendment of the 1993 agreement
through which we will negate (sic) or otherwise affirm the obligation
for the payment of the impact fees as opposed to questioning
responsibility or liability, and secondly, waive the triggering of any
impact fees being done if and when we transfer that property in the
terms of the next year or so and grant us in the addendum the
extension of the impact fee payment for a IS-year period commencing
in September of2005.
With that, I'm open to questions. Mrs. Bennett, are --
MS. BENNETT: Yes, I'm here.
MR. SALEM: Would you like to address the commission for a
quick moment?
Do we have time, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How much time do we have left?
MS. FILSON: We have three minutes and 53 seconds.
MR. SALEM: Okay. If you want to take a moment, then we
can open for questions. Is that permittable?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that will be fine.
MR. SALEM: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MS. BENNETT: Good morning, and thank you for your time.
Page 37
July 26, 2005
Mr. Coletta, I'm sure you're aware of the situation --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you get a little closer to that
microphone, please, so we can get you?
MS. BENNETT: Is that a little better?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And your name, please?
MS. BENNETT: Sherry Bennett.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. BENNETT: I'm the executive director of the Community
Action Agency for Collier County, which is located in Immokalee.
We serve the low income residents of Collier County through a
community service block grant, in short.
I'm sure, as I said, Mr. Coletta, you're very aware of the need for
continuation of this kind of housing out in Immokalee. We're short by
some 30,000 slots as it is.
So it's my job to advocate for the low income residents of Collier
County, and the highest concentration of them are in Immokalee. So
we would really appreciate your consideration, Commissioners, in this
petition, because we're struggling every day to build and provide even
more affordable housing for our migrant population and for the low
income residents in Immokalee in particular.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Now, you understand the
purpose of the public hearing today is not to make a decision on this
issue but to merely decide whether we would be willing to bring it
back for a full public hearing. So I will ask the Commissioners if they
have a question.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. May I ask a question of
Cormac Giblin, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Cormac, for the benefit of the
Commissioners and the audience, would you give us a summary of
Page 38
July 26, 2005
where we are with this and why would be -- what would be the
advantages to proceed as suggested?
MR. GIBLIN: Certainly, Commissioner. For the record,
Cormac Giblin, your Housing and Grants Manager.
An impact fee deferral was recorded in the public record on
September 21, 1993, for $385,000 and some change. That agreement
is due in 15 years from the date of issuance or transfer of ownership.
That's the situation we have now. And Oakhaven Apartments is
looking to transfer ownership, and that would make this 380 some
thousand dollars due now.
The current owners wish, or the perspective buyer, is agreeable to
maintain the affordability of those units for some time period into the
future in exchange for the commission authorizing County Manager to
amend the agreement to apply to the new owner as well.
Basically if we require the payoff of the impact fees now, we lose
160 affordable housing units. We lose control over the maintaining of
160 affordable housing units in Immokalee. If we allow the unit -- I
mean the agreement to be transferred to the new buyer, we can
maintain the affordability for a longer period of time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not quite done yet.
Is it possible -- Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is this something that has to be
brought back for a future meeting or just simply a directive that we
can give to the County Manager at this time?
MR. WEIGEL: Well-- excuse me. The request, as indicated by
Petitioner, was to bring it back to the September 13th meeting. If the
time frame allows for that, I think that's the preferable way to go.
Otherwise, if you give direction to the County Manager to, on your
behalf, sign off on an agreement that's recordable, I'd say that's a little
less -- little less preferable.
And so, I would suggest that we go with the petitioner's original
Page 39
July 26, 2005
request and that the County Manager, County Attorney office, work
with the petitioner to bring it back at your next available board
meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like personally to see
that done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Cormac, I need to have you answer
a couple of questions in regard to this.
MR. GIBLIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifwe extend the time period on not
having this individual pay up the impact fees that are due to the
County at this point in time, what does -- what options do we have to
make sure that the new owner continues this as affordable housing, in
other words, the time frame, how many years? Would this be
extending this payment of impact fees another 10 years before they
would be due or what, or five years?
MR. GIBLIN: Well, I believe the petitioner's request is for an
additional 15 years from, I think, September, September of this year.
So we would ensure the affordability of those units for that many --
that much longer. The existing agreement is not up until September of
2008.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But if we say to this
individual we're not going to accept this, that you have to pay the
impact fees, do we still have any control over keeping these
affordable?
MR. GIBLIN: No, sir. The impact fee deferral on this property
is the only restriction that guarantees the affordability.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. When we bring this back--
you don't have to bother to answer it now -- excuse me. I've been led
to believe that these apartments are in very poor condition, have not
Page 40
July 26, 2005
been maintained, and actually have been in slovenly appearance for
these people to live, which I don't believe any human being should
have to live in.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I'd like to make a correction to
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: I made that statement to you at a meeting
yesterday based on some information. I provided you pictures
because I wanted to see what the pictures were. The pictures don't say
that. They basically say that they're pretty neat.
And I would say that maybe the neighborhood that the
apartments are surrounded by might be in that particular case. But the
apartments themselves are in pretty good shape. I sent that -- I sent
the pictures to you last night, and I basically corrected that statement
that I had received on 30 June.
I will tell you they've probably got some grass to mow, and there
are some violations on abandoned cars, but Code Enforcement's after
those particular issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So in other words, the
information I received has been corrected now?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. It was not totally factual.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because I didn't want to give
anybody the benefit of anything if they hadn't been maintaining this
property.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, yes, ma'am. I would say that these
apartments are probably a bright spot in the area that they're in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there support to bring this back,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One last question I have in regards
to this. The exterior looks great. Has anybody been in the interior
from the County staff in regards to Code Enforcement?
Page 41
July 26, 2005
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, we sent both the Code
Enforcement investigator and someone from my staff out. I don't
believe they entered any of the units. It was basically taking pictures
on the outside. There have been no housing code violations on this
property in the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When this is brought back, I'd like
to have pictures of what the interior looks like.
MR. GIBLIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Apparently there are enough
Commissioners to have this brought back.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. When it does come back,
I would like to know what the market rate for rentals in Immokalee
versus what the rent is at this building.
MR. GIBLIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, I hope
your motion is to bring this back.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It is, my motion is to bring it
back, but I also want to say, I would ask the petitioner if he would
make his units available for any Commissioners that would like to tour
them, of course, with the permission of the tenants that are there.
MR. SALEM: We will-- I'm sorry. We will certainly do that,
Commissioner, and welcome the Commissioners and the staff to visit
the units. And, Commissioner Fiala, I would say that the owners have
made an extraordinary effort to keep the units up as a place where our
residents are happy to live, and we have a waiting list to get in, so
we're proud to show you around.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to bring it back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to bring it back, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Page 42
July 26, 2005
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. We'll bring it
back at what?
MR. MUDD: The 27th of September. I talked to Mr. Salem and
he said that would be -- the 13th of September is really a bad meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. SALEM: That will be satisfactory with us. And we'll work
with the County Manager and the County Attorney to have the
agreements prepared for your review in advance so that we can act on
it at that time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Salem.
MR. SALEM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of
commission. Have a good day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #7 A
PETITION CU-2004-AR-6384 - CONTINUATION APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let's -- seven is just a continuance,
but I need to get the board to vote on that particular item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to continue by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Page 43
July 26, 2005
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2005-276: APPOINTING CLARK WAKEFIELD
HILL TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9A, and it's
appointment of member to the Tourist Development Council.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Clark Wakefield
Hill.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve the
only -- apparently the only applicant to this position.
MS. FILSON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So there can be no further nominations.
All in favor of appointing Mr. Hill to the Tourist Development
Council, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 44
July 26, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2005-277: APPOINTING RAYMOND CABRAL,
MARIA C. HERRERA-RODRIGUEZ, ANNA 1. RODRIGUEZ,
COSME PEREZ AND RENATO F. FERNANDEZ TO THE
HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9B. It's appointment of
members to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve all of the
committee recommendations, plus Mr. --
MS. FILSON: Fernandez.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Renato Fernandez to fill the fifth
position which became vacant after this was printed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There is a motion by
Commissioner Fiala to appoint the four committee recommendations,
plus Renato Fernandez.
And is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further nominations?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of Commissioner Fiala's
Page 45
July 26, 2005
nominations, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, just as a -- just as a note, since the
last board meeting you basically gave Commissioner Coyle the
authority to write the Hispanic Affairs Board and talk about their
particular charter, and he did that, and I believe you all received a
copy of that particular correspondence.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2005-278: APPOINTING DALE SCHULTHEIS,
REG BUXTON AND RICHARD SCHMIDT TO THE PUBLIC
VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
The next item on our agenda is 9C. It's appointment of members
to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Dale
Schulteis as the affiliated member, Rex Burton (sic) as the
non-affiliated member, and Richard Smith (sic) as the alternate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have nominations for Reg
Burton (sic), Richard Schmitt, and Dale Schulteis.
Any other -- any other nominations?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The nominations are closed.
Page 46
July 26, 2005
All in favor of those nominations, 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: They pass unanimously.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2005-279: APPOINTING LARRY H. RAY TO THE
HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9D. It's
appointment of member to the Heath Facilities Authority.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Larry Ray.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve Larry Ray, the
only applicant, by Commissioner Fiala, and second by Commissioner
Halas.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Page 47
July 26, 2005
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9E
APPROVAL OF THE OPENING OF THE 2005 CYCLE I
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS - APPROVED
TO INCLUDE THIS PETITION IN THIS GMP AMENDMENT
CYCLE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9E. It's a request
that the Collier County Board of Commissioners approve the opening
of the 2005 cycle I Growth Management Plan amendments. And I
want to make sure that you understand, because there's two items
today about special cycles.
This is the Growth Management Plan cycle, and the other agenda
item that we'll talk about later on in today's agenda has to do with the
Land Development Code. And this item was asked for by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, and for a very good reason.
We're all familiar with our Reverend Mallory and the wonderful
efforts that he's been putting forth in East Naples, and the only thing
that's been keeping him from achieving his goal has been that common
denominator that stops us all, and that's money. He has worked out an
amazing plan with MOM to come up with a--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: MDG.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, I stand corrected--
and to come up with a plan that will build market rate units in there in
such a way that he'll still be able to go forward with his plans. And
what I'd like to do is have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, second.
Page 48
July 26, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Now, is it my understanding that you are -- this is only to
schedule an agenda item to consider this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. This is not approval?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. My motion is to direct staff
to include this particular property and application in the special
session for the Growth Management Plan amendments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And my second, too.
MR. SCHMITT: Can I correct the record? I would be -- Joe
Schmitt, Administrator of Community Development /Environmental
Services. It would be to open this existing cycle to allow this
amendment to be submitted as a special submittal during this existing
cycle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it is not a request to approve this
particular --
MR. SCHMITT: No, no, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is a request to put it on a future
agenda.
MR. SCHMITT: Right. It would come in as part of the compo
plan amendments that we're currently preparing now. Rather than
wait a year for another cycle, we're in favor of allowing -- for the
public benefit that's going to be -- result from this, we're allow -- we
would like to allow -- open the cycle to allow this petition to come in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And will this be the only petition that
will be allowed to come in?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we're opening the cycle for any
Page 49
July 26, 2005
petitions for change to come in, right?
MR. SCHMITT: For this particular petition, and we already
have 12 others in the queue right now we're staffing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Those are private petitions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would just like to ask that
when we do discuss this, that we include information about this. As
you know, I'm really concerned about this area of this corridor.
And my main, main concern -- my main concern now, right
across the street is the Super W aI-Mart, who now is trying to expand
and add more commercial to that area, plus there is no provision at all
for widening the 1-75 interchange, and -- I'm sorry, the 1-75 corridor
there. I'm very concerned about the traffic.
So I want to know how much we're talking about here.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. That will be fully debated as part
of the compo plan consistency associated with this amendment. It will
be a PUD amendment plus a comprehensive plan amendment. So all
the issues dealing with concurrency will be a part of the petition.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're all in support, I think, of
Reverend Mallory and all of his efforts, and we've kind of followed
how hard he's been working at this. And certainly, Mr. Klohn has an
ideal thing going here, you know, because he's done a good job in
preparing the one in Immokalee. But I have to revert back to what
we're going to do to that road system there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We will discuss that later. We
have a motion on the table. Is there --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to make sure it was
included and on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, I understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine. Because I was going to
say, if you wanted to, they're prepared to make a presentation.
Page 50
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no, no, no. I just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you don't want a presentation at this
point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure this was
included.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta for approval to open the
cycle.
I'm sorry, David?
MR. WEIGEL: It's the opening of the cycle to allow this petition
In.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This particular petition, yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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 #9F
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE HALDEMAN HOUSE -
APPROVED A MOTION TO COOPERATE WITH THE CITY OF
NAPLES TO HELP PRESERVE THE HALDEMAN HOUSE
Page 51
July 26, 2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9F. It's a
discussion regarding the Haldeman house, and this particular item for
discussion was asked for by Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner
Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who wants to go first,
Commissioner Fiala or Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll go first and just say that I
would just hate to lose the Haldeman house. Personally I don't feel to
move it over to the Depot property is a good idea. I know that there's
been an effort going on right now to gather money to solicit for dollars
to move this.
You know, there's that empty lot there by the Palm Cottage. I
thought, gee, it could be that close by. You could almost shove it
down the street, and it would be right on that empty lot there. There's
only a gazebo there. I thought that might be an appropriate place.
We also have the regional library going up there in -- by Lely
Resort, and we've got extra property there. Even if the EOC goes
there, you know, it could be put there as like, in some kind of a
meeting room or something in conjunction with the library. That
might be something else to do.
I just don't want to see the house go away. I just don't want to see
it demolished. So I thought, I would like to see if we could somehow
discuss what we can do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let the City of Naples handle it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta was the other
person who asked, if you don't mind, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may. I agree with
everything Commissioner Fiala said. You know, anything we can do
Page 52
July 26, 2005
to preserve it, fine, short of taking money from our present budget --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- in doing it. But I mean, as far
as finding a location and accepting something that is duty free, more
or less, with fully restored money for -- either fully restored or money
for restoration to be able to bring it up to par. If that's all in place, I'm
more than willing to accept it as a gift to the County and for all
citizens to enjoy for generations to come.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concerns about this
because of the fact that this -- if this building is of such importance --
first of all, it was never put on a national registry. Secondly, I think
that the location that it is at present is really the location that it ought
to stay at because that's the significance of where that house was built,
and it's right next to the pier.
So I feel that this is an issue that should be addressed by the City
of Naples, and since it's on their property or in the confines of the city,
I think that they need to address that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The City of Naples has several
hundred acres in the unincorporated area, not even including within
their municipality.
I think they have a lot of opportunities. If they wish to keep
historical buildings, they have the opportunity to do that. And I think
we have our plate full. We don't have do bailout every time a depot
or a building comes up for demolish or change or redevelopment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask maybe if Ron Jamro
might have some input into this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You could.
MR. JAMRO: Good morning, Commissioners. Ron Jamro, your
museum director. Don Craig, the president of the Friends of the
Museum, was unfortunately just called away and had a few comments
Page 53
July 26, 2005
for you, but I think I can sum up the Friends of the Museum's position.
And the Friends of the Museum have never let us down. Most of
the museum that exists here at the courthouse is their doing, and they
have -- they're experts in moving things and have demonstrated that in
the past, also restoring buildings as well.
This is not just an ordinary building. This is one of Collier
County's oldest structures. Possibly one of the oldest wooden
structures in the State of Florida, is connected with the founding
families, both founding families of Naples, the -- Joe Johnness
(phonetic) Williams and Walter Newman Haldeman, and there's a
connection to the museum and the Friends of the Museum as well
since the great-grandson, Charles Price, was also a Haldeman, so --
and he's also the founder of the Friends of the Museum, so we have an
emotional bond there as well.
The Friends have -- there are any number of plans, and you've
heard them all and you've proposed some final ones yourself. The
Friends are merely asking your blessing to prepare a fallback position.
Time is short, and it does, it looks pretty grim, frankly, at the
moment.
We have $175,000 in pledges thus far to move it either to the
Depot or to the museum property here to add to the collection of
buildings, and that is the situation today. That is not the whole
structure. That's the original piece, about 1888 to 1912.
Do we need another restoration project right now?
Commissioner Halas is right, we're pretty busy at the Depot, as you
can imagine. And I must say, the Depot is just something that was
proposed as an idea to keep it in the City of Naples. That seemed to
be important to some folks.
And we really don't have permission from the Southwest
Heritage, our landlords there, to even pursue that. There's some
interest on their part, but I couldn't tell you for certain that they're all
in favor of that or that it will even fit there. Our -- the Friends'
Page 54
July 26, 2005
architect is considering that and moving things around. But again,
time is short, and we don't really have a final plan for you yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can I jump into this?
MR. JAMRO: Sure, please do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've been involved in these efforts to
preserve historic structures in Naples since I was on the council there
and we got involved in the Wilkinson house debacle, and it's the same
story every time. Nobody thinks about this until it's too late.
MR. JAMRO: You're right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There have been efforts for a decade or
maybe two decades to establish a historical preservation effort in the
City of Naples to preserve some of these historic structures, and there
never seems to be enough support to do that until suddenly a historic
structure is threatened, and then there's a frantic search for ways to
solve it, and the problem is, it's always too late at that point in time.
And until there is an organization or a group of organizations, a
coalition, that can accumulate the money and is willed by the city
council to begin to preserve some of these older structures, it's just not
going to happen, unfortunately, because we're always behind the
power curve on these kinds of things.
But I would -- I would like to suggest that we cooperate with the
City of Naples to the extent that it does not require any expenditure of
our current funds. If we can find a space that's suitable to them, they
can move the house. And it makes sense for us in County
government. I think we should do everything we can do.
But I started trying to get -- as a matter of fact, I put members of
the city council in contact with the broker for this house almost two
years ago, and it's my understanding the city council just hasn't had
any interest in proceeding with this, probably because of the cost, and
they just don't have that kind of money.
But if they're ever going to do this, there needs to be some kind
of an effort, a fundraising effort among all of these organizations who
Page 55
July 26, 2005
are interested in historic preservation.
And so I won't belabor this too long, but if the board would be
willing to work cooperatively with the city council in a way that
doesn't require the expenditure of our funds --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd second your motion,
Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that would -- that would be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly where we were going.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So long as we make this perfectly
clear that we'll partner. But as far as funds or even maintenance of it,
it is going to have to be -- that's going to have to be done by the
people in the City of Naples, okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. If that's acceptable to the
members of the board, all in favor, please signify by saying -- I'm
sorry. You have one public speaker, I'm sorry.
MS. FILSON: I have a speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, yes, you do.
MS. FILSON: Kathleen Slebodnik.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we're going to have to break
at 10:35, if you don't mind, Kathleen. Something very important is
happening at that time.
MS. SLEBODNIK: Yes, all right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. SLEBODNIK: What do I have, two minutes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am,
MS. SLEBODNIK: Kathleen Slebodnik, 32 Pebble Beach
Boulevard. I am a member of that ad hoc committee that has been
formed in the city to try and save the Haldeman house, and I did not
Page 56
July 26, 2005
expect to speak today. I came to hear what your comments were.
And Mr. Jamro asked me, since I've been involved in this effort
from the beginning, if I would just add to this.
Our biggest problem right now -- and I quite agree, this is a City
of Naples issue, and the city has to decide what they want that area to
look like, because the current purchaser of the -- or he's on contract to
buy this property on August the 25th. The city has to -- and he has
presented a plan to the planning board. He wants to subdivide that
area -- it's 1.9 acres -- into five building lots.
Now, does the city want five large mansions on that area? They
have to decide if this is what they want to do.
The problem, immediate prob -- and they've turned it down
twice. They go before the planning board again on the -- August the
10th.
The difficulty and the major problem that concerns me and keeps
me awake at night is that there is a demolition permit that has been
issued by the City of Naples. It was issued on August the 15th, and
demolition -- after a 45-day period, demolition is scheduled for the 1 st
of August.
Now, Mr. Goldberg, who is the potential buyer of this property,
has every right to do what he is doing. There is nothing that he is
doing -- that he -- that anyone in this room could not have done, which
is purchase that property and enter an agreement with the family that
wanted to sell it, and he is doing -- going through the motions.
He has met with us. We have met with the family. And there
has been -- we meet practically every other day almost on this thing
over the summertime.
What scares me is this demolition. Two things need to be done
then. This demolition permit somehow --I don't know how -- the city
has got to extend this so that we can get a reprieve here, or else on the
midnight of the -- of seven days from now that house is coming down.
And wherever you move it, you're not going to -- it's not going to
Page 57
July 26, 2005
be the same, the symmetry, the position of it, where it is, the history of
it. As I take people on my walking tours through Old Naples, I stop
twice at the Haldeman house and tell them the story of Williams and
Haldeman and this house.
It's just not going to be there, and it's a real crying shame,
because this is a special place. And I'm glad of your motion. I hope
you work with the city to save this. There are probably fundraising
abilities. But, you know, we're out of time, and this is the problem.
We are just simply out of time.
And I thank you for your concern.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Ms. Slebodnik.
We will continue --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one question I'd like to ask
her.
Ms. Slebodnik, can you ask me -- or answer why the family
never pursued getting this on the national registry --
MS. SLEBODNIK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- because then it would have been
preserved at that location, and we wouldn't be in the predicament we
are today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The family is a -- are Kentucky
residents. They are not Florida residents, so they never had the ability
to homestead the property. In order to protect what she thought was
her family's interest, the mother, Anne Price Coombs, put the home
into a corporation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. SLEBODNIK: And it's a Kentucky registered corporation.
And as such, from what I understand, if you are in a private
corporation such as that, you cannot register it as a historical site.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. We're
going to recess. The space shuttle is going to be launched in about
three minutes. It should be on the television screens if you'd like to
Page 58
July 26, 2005
see it.
MR. MUDD: We'll try.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to try to have it up on the
screens.
Yes?
MS. FILSON: You need to call the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We will call the motion before
we lose our quorum.
All in favor of the motion to cooperate with the City of Naples in
finding a way to preserve this house without the expenditure of
additional County funds, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It carries --
MR. MUDD: 4-0.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- 4-0, with Commissioner Coletta
absent. Thank you very much. And we'll re-adjourn in 15 minutes.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're back in session.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Where do we go next on this
agenda?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to the next item, and
that's item 9G. It's a discussion regarding the FEMA floodplain
mapping project, and that discussion was asked for by Commissioner
Coletta.
Page 59
July 26, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Where is Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's not here.
Item #9H
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY
AND EFFECTIVENESS STUDY WORKSHOP TENTATIVELY
SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2005 - APPROVED
WORKSHOP MEETING DATE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next agenda
item, which is agenda item 9H, and we'll come back to G when
Commissioner Coletta returns to the dais.
It's 9H, and that's a discussion regarding the operational
efficiency and effectiveness study workshop tentatively scheduled for
November 9,2005. And this item was asked for by Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This item is basically -- I'm asking
-- looking for guidance whereby we can send out letters to the
appropriate people to join us in this workshop so that we can get some
idea of making this County hopefully more efficient whereby we
combine IT staffs, we combine medical insurance, and so on.
And as you can see from the letter, it's a multitude of people, and
we're looking for a workshop to be held in November, and so I'm
looking for the guidance from the commission here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're asking -- I'm sorry,
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're asking the chair to write
a letter to elected officials to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I'm going to write the letter, or
I'm going to send the letters out. I'm just asking that I get your blessing
that we can go ahead with this workshop on the November -- the date
that's on here, November the 9th at nine a.m. in the morning.
Page 60
July 26, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, this -- this is actually a report of
the work that they have already done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So what really happened here was that
when we set up this administrative efficiency and effectiveness effort,
a number of the other independent governmental agencies agreed to
participate, and they've been working with it, but we promised them at
that time that they would be involved in a joint presentation --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Joint presentation, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- of the results.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Of the committees that are working
on it, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, of the results. And I would -- I
would suggest that we give Commissioner Halas the guidance to go
ahead and have this -- this workshop to let the productivity committee
present their recommendations to the other governmental agencies that
have been participating.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I make that a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's seconded by Commissioner
Henning.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 61
July 26, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #90
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN
MAPPING PROJECT -APPROVED MOTION TO DISCONTINUE
THE LAWSUIT AGAINST FEMA
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we'll go back to item 9G, which is
a discussion regarding the FEMA floodplain map, mapping project,
and this item for discussion was asked for by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And I thank you very
much for allowing me to put this -- pull this from the consent agenda
and go forward with it.
Needless to say, when this item came before us originally and we
were giving it great consideration, the reason I voted in the affirmative
to go forward with a lawsuit with FEMA was, I thought that was the
will of the City of Naples. I didn't quite agree with everything, but
then again too, the City of Naples is an important entity in Collier
County, and I fully support their efforts whenever they come forward.
When I got Mayor Barnett's letter, it was quite an eye-opener.
Everything he said in his letter, I'm in total agreement with.
Since then I've had discussions with other staff members, and I
found that now FEMA is in the position whereby any communications
that take place, they want to have their lawyer present. It's getting to
be an adversarial position that I think will be of no value to the County
to continue, and I would even like to call -- Jeff, would you mind?
Before when we had this come before us, you said that our chances for
success were minimal. Would you repeat or maybe elaborate, or if
there's any additions or corrections to that.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I do believe that the relief we're
seeking is very difficult to obtain, and that would be getting a full
Page 62
July 26, 2005
injunction on FEMA. That doesn't mean we can't discuss the issue
with FEMA and, perhaps, reach a settlement agreement with them.
We don't get quite everything we want, they don't get quite everything
they want.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But then again, too--
MR. KLATZKOW: But actually a home run, no, that's not likely
to happen, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Meanwhile, we were pursuing
this with the idea that the City of Naples was going to be a part of it.
Lo and behold --
MR. KLATZKOW: That was my understanding.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- they're no longer a part and
we're carrying the ball. We're trying to represent their very best
interest, what we thought was their very best interest, and they're
saying they trust the system to work itself out.
MR. KLATZKOW: They are the ones who are most impacted
by this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. I think we need
to rethink our position, or at least discuss it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, remember that the FEMA maps
address the entire coastal area pretty much of Collier County, and that
the City of Naples, of course, is a relatively small portion of that
coastal community.
Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Fiala have districts
where much of that area is impacted by the FEMA maps, and I would
be interested in hearing from them whether or not they want to
continue to try to represent the interest of their constituents even
though the City of Naples does not.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I think that I'd like to go
forward with what we agreed with at the last commission meeting. I
feel that when this comes before the judge, there's a good chance that
Page 63
July 26, 2005
he may ask us to go through an arbitration period, and that might even
expedite these FEMA maps even quicker.
But I think that when it does reach that point, I really believe that
we'll be able to -- it will be more beneficial for the people at that point
in time. We'll get this resolved in a quick order. That's my take on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Commissioner, what I'd
like to do is call Joe Schmitt to the podium there.
Mr. Schmitt, you've been in these negotiations from day one. I
was a party early on, and intermittently I would come aboard.
From where we stand now and where we're contemplating to go,
what do you think we're going to do? I mean, you've dealt with this
situation many times in your past life, too. I mean, what can we
expect to happen?
MR. SCHMITT: Tough question. Again, for the record, Joe
Schmitt, Community Development /Environmental Services
Administrator.
The issue really is the injunction, whether or not we can stay the
date as far as the implementation of the maps. Once we file that, of
course, it becomes an adversarial relationship. That makes things
difficult in negotiating, the discussing time schedules and
commitments with FEMA.
As I presented at the last meeting when we met, when we went
up to Atlanta prior to the last meeting, there was an offer on the table
to go with an administrative process. Yes, they would implement the
maps effective in November, but we would proceed with our intent of
updating the maps in Collier County with a joint effort, both us and
FEMA, funded by FEMA as well to -- with their new contractor, to
develop new maps.
We anticipated we may live with these maps maybe for 18 to 24
months, and then they would issue a new set of maps. The estimate
was that now that we enter into the legal maneuvering that we're going
Page 64
July 26, 2005
through now, it may delay that.
I cannot categorically put a time frame. I know Mr. Mudd
mentioned six months. It could be six months, it could be 12, it could
be up to 18 months longer in the process because of awaiting, one, for
the decision from the judge, which I would have to defer to the
County Attorney's office when we'd expect to hear something from
the judge.
But to answer your question, it is -- it creates an adversarial
relationship rather than a cooperative and partnership. They offered to
enter into a formal partnership with the city, with the County, and with
FEMA in order produce the maps, and that way we would get a
commitment from them even with regards to their contractor
producing the final set of maps.
So it's -- we've kind of -- we've kind of already done it as far as
the formal submission, and we filed the petition, so it's basically kind
of a --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So there's no reason why we
couldn't withdraw this petition and ask that we could pick up where
we left off if we so desired?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, I would, again, defer to the County
Attorney, but certainly that would be a gesture of a more cooperative
relationship to the -- with the agency than the adversarial relationship
that we're now in with regards to the filing for the petition.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe decide to proceed on this
particular course, I'm going to want a scorecard monthly of where we
are and what it's costing the taxpayers of Collier County.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, Jeff Klatzkow again. It
won't cost the taxpayers anything as far as the lawsuit goes. It's just
my time.
The new maps are scheduled to go into effect in November.
We're going to know before then whether or not we're successful. The
lawsuit --
Page 65
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What may happen is they may
go ahead and delay the whole process. Our residents may end up
having to pay insurances that are -- needlessly have to be paid over a
period of time that will far exceed anything working with them, that's
my concern.
I'm sure at the County level our costs will be almost negligible. I
don't look at this as a venture to keep attorneys employed. I want to
come up with solutions in the shortest time period possible. I think
that the adversarial position that we're taking is a mistake, and I hope
that we reconsider the position that we earlier came up with.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You asked, being that I'm also
representing a coastal area, how I would feel about this. I'm one who
never believes that you win by attacking the other guy. I always feel
that the way to get to the winner's circle is to work with the other side,
put all of your concerns on the table, sit down together and come to a
winning conclusion.
And so I have to agree with Commissioner Coletta completely. I
just think that -- I've been -- I've been uncomfortable about this right
from the start. And then now just hearing Joe Schmitt too, I think that
he really confirms that we would probably be further ahead by
working with FEMA people and moving in that direction rather than
attacking them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe, Commissioner, that
you've been working on this for a number of years. And, of course,
when we started to work on this diligently with County staff, some of
the deadlines that were imposed upon us were the deadlines that there
was no way that we were really going to accomplish the task.
And I think that FEMA's kind of left us in a lurch, because when
we asked that -- we needed some extension in the time element, they
were somewhat reluctant to give us the additional time needed. And I
Page 66
July 26, 2005
think that we need to bring this to a head, and I think the best way to
do this is -- as I said before, I don't believe this is going to be that
adversarial. I believe that when this comes before the judge, he's
going to make some recommendations that this injunction -- that we
try to work together, and hopefully maybe we can get both parties at
the table and get this taken care of in a shorter time frame than the
manner in which we've been working with it.
And I believe, Chair, that you said that you've been working with
the City of Naples on this same issue for a number of years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I've been working on this now for
seven years, and it should have been completed three years ago, but
I've gone through all that before.
But, quite frankly, since the City of Naples has withdrawn their
support for this effort, I personally do not have a dog in this fight.
There are other areas of the County that deserve representation, and
they are going to be paying higher rates, and they are going to be
impacted.
And all new construction is going to be impacted in all of those
areas in Collier County, and I think the costs associated with that pale
in comparison with any legal challenge that we have here. I think it is
a mistake not to do this.
There is no relationship with FEMA. It has produced no positive
benefits whatsoever. FEMA has not cut us any slack on any of these
issues. They have slammed the door in our face, and we have failed to
carry out our responsibilities.
But the -- as far as my district is concerned, I don't really have a
dog in this fight. So if the City of Naples has decided that they don't
want to challenge this, then there's not much I can do about that,
although I disagree with the decision.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I just wanted to point out
that not everything you said was quite correct. There has been a
Page 67
July 26, 2005
working relationship with FEMA. They have extended us a number
of times.
Has it been truly a great relationship? No. It's had its ups and
downs, but we have been able to reconcile some of the difficulties.
We're pushed a little bit against the door at this point in time. I
think now if we step back and we wreak in order to get where we are
and go back to FEMA, that we'll be able to bring this to some
Resolution in as short a time as possible.
I do believe that our taxpayers are going to end up paying a lot
more money if we try to draw this out in a lawsuit because the time
element's going to come in, the map will probably be put in effect, and
it will be in effect a lot longer before it can be resolved.
We also have the ability that -- anything that's in effect for a year
that can be refuted, the person gets back a refund. That's according to
FEMA back some time ago when we learned it.
So there are other mechanisms in place that would make it work.
I just really question this adversarial relationship.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, and then
we've got to terminate this debate and get on with it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that whether we have this
injunction or not, the maps are going to come in effect on -- in
November; is that correct, Joe?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So what we're getting at is
-- the end result is that where we stand today with FEMA is whether
we challenge them or we don't challenge them, they're still going to
put those maps in effect in November, and I'm hoping that if -- we can
get this rectified a lot quicker and maybe through this injunction.
MR. SCHMITT: The injunction is to stop the implementation of
the maps. That's what the petition was filed by -- as Jeff said, so it's
the -- if, in fact, the court overrules and doesn't support us, the maps
are going to go into effect.
Page 68
July 26, 2005
I'll be coming back to you in September with a flood Ordinance,
update the flood Ordinance for Collier County, which tells the
building director to implement the BFEs as -- the base flood elevations
as defined on those flood insurance rate maps.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what we can do is then -- you're
telling me then -- my understanding is -- I need to be corrected here --
that if we have this injunction, there's a good chance that we can stop
the implementation of the flood maps on -- for November; is that
correct?
MR. SCHMITT: That's what the petition was, basically to
prevent those maps from being implemented. We still are moving
forward with every effort to try and update the maps in Collier County
using the data that we're providing to FEMA, and that is our intent
regardless of which way this goes. We will work with FEMA to
produce a set of maps that more correctly reflect the existing
topography and engineering associated with the determination of those
flood elevations.
That's our intent. It's just a matter of the decision or the
discussion here is whether the lawsuit complicates and drags out that
relationship or that effort between FEMA and us versus -- versus just
trying to do this through an administrative process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying then, if they
cannot implement the flood maps, then the chances are we won't be
going through an increase in flood insurance; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, if the judge --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Says to hold off --
MR. SCHMITT: -- holds off, everything stays as is, and we
continue to send FEMA the information to produce a new set of maps.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's the way to do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jeff, would you please comment
on that again about our chances of being successful at that?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think our best chances in this particular
Page 69
July 26, 2005
matter is to get FEMA in front of a judge and to get the judge to agree
that we mediate this, we get all the data there, and that FEMA agrees
to do what they should have done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I agree.
MR. KLATZKOW: But as far as getting the injunction goes, if
the judge doesn't give us that, we are not likely to prevail on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Back up again, Jeff, a
little. Not too long ago, maybe I took it out of context. There was a
comment made by you that you thought our chances of succeeding in
this were --
MR. KLATZKOW: They're slim.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're slim.
MR. KLATZKOW: As far as getting the injunction, they're slim.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So then we draw the whole
process out even longer. I'd like to bring this to a close by making a
motion -- see where it goes -- and that's a motion to discontinue the
lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to discontinue the
lawsuit by Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's -- and those opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
The motion passes 3-2, with Commissioner Coyle and
Commissioner Halas dissenting.
Okay. Where do we go from here?
Item #8F
Page 70
July 26, 2005
RESOLUTION 2005-280: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
BOARD ESTABLISH A MUNICIPAL SERVICES BENEFIT UNIT
PURSUANT TO A PETITION OF PROPERTY OWNERS TO
FUND THE RESTORATION OF THE LAKE BETWEEN 107TH
AVENUE NORTH AND 108TH AVENUE NORTH AND IMPROVE
STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT FOR SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES - ADOPTED WI STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have a time certain item for 11
o'clock, and that is 8F. It is a recommendation that the board establish
a municipal services benefit unit pursuant to a petition of the property
owners to fund the restoration of the lake between 1 07th Avenue
North and 108th Avenue North and improve stormwater management
for surrounding properties.
MR. KLATZKOW: JeffKlatzkow, County Attorney's office.
This is a petition to -- by the residents to establish an MSBU. What
they have here is a lake that over the course of time has silted in, it's
putrefied, so that it's now growing various exotic plants, and it's not --
quite frankly, it's losing its ability to be a lake and to drain the area.
The community was established some time ago, and
unfortunately there's no homeowners' association that can do this. It's
just the individual property owners who are around the lake and they
own the lake in common.
They have asked the County for its help to see what we could do
to help them clean up the lake. And I guess if there are public
speakers, because it is their petition, I think the best thing to do would
be listen to the property owners on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can you call the first public
speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Jeannette Showalter. She'll be followed
by Lloyd Bowein.
MS. SHOWALTER: I have this for Commissioner Coyle. I did
Page 71
July 26, 2005
not know you were going to be here, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Thank you very much. And
by the way, can we -- can you make all your points in three minutes?
Is that probable for you?
MS. SHOWALTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MS. SHOWALTER: What you have before you are some
pictures of the lake from an aerial view, 2002, showing that it was a
pretty cleaned out situation, and then the subsequent pictures are as of
about December of '04.
My name is Jeannette Showalter, a service spokeswoman for the
petitioners for this item, and I would ask those who came in support
today to stand.
Thank you very much for coming.
Specifically the petition has been signed by 18 of the 30 parcel
owners. Of the responses to this petition, more than 85 percent are for
it; less than 10 percent against. This is an overwhelmingly positive
response.
And three of those who are for it are seniors, and I'd like Lillian
Orner to stand. Lillian, you have been there for approximately 30
years. And Lillian remembers the lake as so deep and clean that she
used to swim in it.
F or the northeastern section of Naples Park, a low lying area, the
lake is an extremely important watershed, and absent maintenance,
we're going to lose it. Also, it's being increasingly used as a back yard
dump. Right now it holds construction cones, plywood,
air-conditioning filters, plastic of all sorts, and other.
And as the vegetation grows, so does the rat population, and they
will burrow and caused continued erosion there.
Dredging is not considered an option at this point inasmuch as it
was considered to be too burdensome to some of the owners, and the
cleanup has been developed as a scaled-back response to create
Page 72
July 26, 2005
greater consensus and get us in the winner's circle.
Specifically the petitioners are asking that those and only those
who live on the lake be required to pay their fair share of the cost of
maintaining this lake. The maintenance is not new. This has been
done continuously over the past 10, 15 years. As recently as this year,
we were given a permit to clean it out.
In the past six years, Tom Mooney personally did it two times,
and in prior years, 50 percent of the owners did it, then it became 25
percent of the owners paid, then it became 10, and no one did it.
So at this juncture, Tom is not able to do it, and the petitioners
want everyone to pay a fair allocation of costs. So I want to thank
Tom for his many years of labor to clean the lake and his efforts to
bring this to this point where it is now.
I want to thank the County staff, the numerous people with whom
we interface who are all helpful and available to us, and I want to
thank the Commissioners with whom -- who gave me time. And those
of you who were able to read the material, I appreciate what -- your
attention to the matter. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lloyd Bowein. He'll be
followed by Thomas Mooney.
MR. BOWEIN: I'll just make it quick. My name is Lloyd
Bowein, and I own some property around the lake, and it's in atrocious
shape, and we need to clean it up, so I agree with everything she says,
and that's all I've got to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Thomas Mooney.
MR. MOONEY: Good morning, Tom Mooney. I live on the
lake in Naples Park. You've all seen me here about six months ago,
still doing what I was told to do as far as the lake goes. I hope that we
can resolve this today and get it cleaned up. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Page 73
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a question I'd like to ask
Tom.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners Halas, sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You have 34 properties that circle
this whole lake; is that correct?
MR. MOONEY: That would be 34.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you only had 18 that approved
this?
MR. MOONEY: Some of the lots are still on the plat and deed
as single lots that have been combined as one lot now. So people own
double lots that are now one lot, so there's some --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Of all the people that live
around the lake, including the combined lots, how many does that --
how many homeowners are on that lake then?
MR. MOONEY: Jeannette would be better qualified to answer
that question right at this point. She's got some paperwork.
Jeannette, how many?
MS. SHOWALTER: I think we just have --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you come to the microphone,
please. We need to get you on the record.
MS. SHOWALTER: I think we have two houses that are on--
use two lots.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So what's the feeling of the
other people, that they have no say at all in this?
MS. SHOWALTER: We have about 10 people who are silent,
and they've been invited to multiple meetings. They do not speak
about the issue. And then I received three -- copies of three letters
sent to the Commissioners; two were against it, and one had issues
with it. But the one who has issues with it wants to have the cattails
and the vegetation cleaned out. I think she's concerned about the cost.
Two seniors who don't want it have a different description of the
lake. They might describe it as always was a hole, always will be a
Page 74
July 26, 2005
hole, but that doesn't match with some of the elder senior residents
who are there.
I would say that the senior residents who have voiced objection,
they are on the curve of the lake. Their frontage is only about 33 feet.
They will have a lower percent of the allocation of cost. Those such
as Lillian who have 50 feet of frontage, they will be bearing a greater
percentage of the cost. I hope that's helpful, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That helps. My concern is that you
have tried diligently to have -- work with the homeowners around that
lake and to come up with some type of a pool for money and that they
haven't cooperated with you; is that correct? So here we are, now it's
in the County's hands in regards to trying to institute this.
MS. SHOW ALTER: I'm going to let Tom speak to that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MOONEY: I've been working on the lake for at least three
years. I've done walk -arounds, I've knocked on doors. Jeannette has
accompanied me, several of the other residents have accompanied me,
to try and get my 28 neighbors to work together to resolve the lake
because we all live there and we all own a part of the lake.
Some people just don't care, some don't want to be bothered,
some don't want to be in the position that I've been put in to have
neighbors upset with you because you've spearheaded this project. It's
been an ongoing thing.
And we've had several meetings in Naples Park pertaining to the
lake, tried to get everybody to work together to get this done. When
you make mail-outs and you write nice letters and you say, please
attend the meeting, please help us, you know, rectify the lake
situation, and out of 28 people, 11 show up, after three times of doing
this, we brought it to the County to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My question is, you're
talking about $40,000. Is this a firm estimate or is this just a brief -- is
this firm or is this going to be -- escalate higher than 40,000?
Page 75
July 26, 2005
MS. SHOW ALTER: I expected it could come in much lower.
We got an estimate from a professional firm, both coasts, president
measured it, figured out the weight of moving the stuff. I expect when
the County bids it out, it should come in lower. I do have to say
though, it's an escalating problem. What was three-quarters of an acre
of cattails in January is now probably an acre or more. But I believe
that it will come in at less than 40,000.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Is there a way that we can
put a cap on it at 40,000?
MS. SHOWALTER: If you want to add a cap at this point,
Commissioner, and that gives you a level of comfort. I can't go back
to all of these people. I've had multiple iterations of petitions from the
County, and it's -- I'm spent on the issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned that if we don't put a
cap on it, that we may have concerns. I'd like to have the County
Attorney also -- I guess what we're going to have to do, is basically
the County's going to loan them the money to clean this up, is that
correct, and then we're going to collect this off of an MSTBU; is that
the way we're going to move on this?
MR. WEIGEL: Pretty close. My understanding, that the
petitions for which there was response included one endorsement of a
project to clean up the lake to the amount of $40,000, but also as --
part of the question was that the County, with the County to advance
the $40,000 for the work to be done.
I've not only discussed it internally with my office, but touched
base with Derek Johnssen of the Clerk's office and Mike Smykowski
of our budget office for the County Manager, because in order to loan
money, there are certain precepts that have to be met legally. One is a
determination by the Board of County Commissioners that there is a
public benefit in this.
This project is, to some degree, certainly distinguished from other
municipal service benefit units or taxing units in the sense that we're
Page 76
July 26, 2005
not dealing with regular infrastructure for which benefit units are
typically created, although there can be some variation, such as -- such
as water and sewer, stormwater drainage and things of that nature
generally.
This affects an interior area, and the County mayor may not be
able to factually make a statement that there is, in fact, water retention
or other aspects that are good for the community beyond the 30 --
approximately 34 properties that perimeter this lake.
Additionally, I think my discussion both with Mike Smykowski
and Derek Johnssen of the Clerk's office is, is that, it is, let's say,
potentially problematic for the Board of County Commissioners to
loan money.
Ostensibly this is for a one-year payback. Please be advised that
with a benefit unit created, there will be individual billing going to
these properties that are affected. There is no ability to determine with
certainty that Guy Carlton would put this on the tax bills for these
people, which may mean that we have independent billing.
Regardless, the fact is that if someone doesn't pay their
proportionate share, we will have a lien on the property and would
attempt to go forward any way we could for the collection. It being
homestead property, it could not be foreclosed, so we may be out a
proportionate share for a particular piece of property for some period
of time, until such event occurs as sale or something else to the
property that changes its homestead character. So there are some
background issues that exist.
One other thing I'd mention is that with every MSTU or MSBU,
this is a request for the petitioners for the County to create and
administer this thing, and there has always been an administrative cost
factored into the cost of an MSBU or - TU. So if $40,000 is a figure
that's -- I'll call it a capped figure, we would have to include, to some
degree, the proportionate share of cost that County Manager staff,
County Attorney staff may have in the implementation and operation
Page 77
July 26, 2005
of the MSBU for its duration.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are we -- I've got just a couple
more questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It looks to me, the breakdown on
this prior to any administrative costs are going to be around $1,176 per
individual around the lake.
Is there a way that the individuals can pay this back in a two-year
time frame, which would probably ease the pain, because I think there
is some people there who are probably on a fixed income.
And so I'm looking to see if there's a way that we could pay this
back in two years.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, as Derek knows, when you go beyond one
year, then it's more problematic because it's -- it's not legally possible
to put ad valorem dollars out for more than a one-year period. In
essence, it comes into a pledge of dollars.
So I think it -- it makes it more problematic unless you have a
referendum with a little more formalized process for that kind of
funding. I don't know if Derek has any additional thought or not.
MR. JOHNSSEN: No. Derek Johnssen. That's more of a legal
issue. We'd be looking for the public purpose really in this
transaction.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just -- is there any hardship, let's
say, for an individual around the lake that didn't sign this agreement
whereby they decide that they don't want to pay this, and so we put a
lien on their property? Does that burden them in any way other than
the lien?
MR. WEIGEL: It may affect their credit status to some extent.
MS. SHOW ALTER: Commissioner, can I speak to this for a
moment?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
MS. SHOWALTER: Because you and I have had discussions
Page 78
--_. _._--~--,,_."~..-.-
July 26, 2005
about this for lessening it for the seniors. When we were talking about
doing the dredging, which was a bigger -- much bigger proj ect, I
personally at the meeting offered -- because at the time you thought it
could be spread out over seven years.
We went and we told the people that, and then we had to come
back and tell them it was our intent. It can't be done. I personally
said, to those two seniors who said this is burdensome to them, I will
personally finance you on the same terms that the County would. I
will give you the seven years.
So if you say today, two years is something reasonable for these
two, I stand before the County today, I will finance those people over
a two-year period. They can maybe pay one, I'll pay the other, if you
say you want me to finance it over a long period of time.
The thing has to be expedited. I am the only lot owner at this
point willing to use my property for excavation, taking out of this
material. And I've been holding in abeyance building, selling, doing
different things with it because of the need to use this as an exit way.
So I hope that would help address some of your concerns.
And when you knock on the door of a senior, when you send
them a letter, when you make the offer and they don't respond to you,
it is extremely difficult to have a dialogue with them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you plan -- what's your future
plans for maintenance once you build a house on this where there's no
easement to the lake? How are you going to address that?
MS. SHOWALTER: Well, as I've said to some of the residents,
I'm trying to get my kids through grade school and then we're going to
worry about college. And I'm trying to get these people -- you asked
me to create consensus, to get in the winning circle, okay. I'm trying
to create that with these people.
Then the next step is here, you have this improved, maintained
property. Now you have two choices. Now you take it forward with
an MSTU, you take it forward with a homeowners' association.
Page 79
July 26, 2005
They're going to have to make that decision. But if you ask me
now, what are the costs of it going to be, how are you going to
estimate it, I would not have a clue as to any of the -- and even to get
somebody to come in and bid the stuff, they don't want bidding the
stuffbecause they know it's going to go out for bid ultimately through
Collier County.
So I think ultimately the residents have reached a point of
participation. They will take this forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just need to ask you a quick question
here. Bottom line, what do the numbers indicate as far as votes for
this particular process? Is there a majority of property owners in favor
of this process?
MS. SHOW ALTER: Yes. To get before you today, to get on
your agenda, we needed 50 percent plus one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you've got that?
MS. SHOWALTER: We are here today. Your group has
certified it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. What are you going to do
about maintaining it?
MR. MOONEY: I have some paperwork from a company called
the Lake Doctor who has been out to the lake and looked at this and
given us a proposed -- a proposal of what it would cost to maintain the
lake from the -- once it's been cleaned, from there forward.
A number of us in the past years have already paid these people
to come out and maintain, but it never made sense that six of us paid
while 28 of us lived around the lake. We did that for years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, after you've
cleaned it up for $40,000, how are you going to maintain the
appearance of it then?
MS. SHOWALTER: Okay. We are going to have additional
meetings at that point, and we will decide at that point whether or not
Page 80
July 26, 2005
it will be a homeowners' association voluntary, and we'll have a large
number of people chip in, or whether or not they'll want to form an
MSTU of some other -- of some other type. But creating consensus
on this was the most that we could do at this juncture to handle this.
I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have two Commissioners who want
to speak. We've got to bring this to a close pretty quickly. Let's me
ask you a question, County Manager. Does this lake serve a
stormwater collection function?
MR. MUDD: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: None at all?
MR. MUDD: There is no inlet or outlet. It's pretty much their
stormwater issue with their lake.
This petitioner, Mr. Mooney, came before you six months ago
and asked you what you could do. You basically said, go set up an
MSTBU. I believe they've done that. What they could gain
consensus on was the initial cleanup, and I believe that they're going
to have to deal with the long-term maintenance at subsequent
community meetings that they have on 107th and 108th Street and
folks that surround this lake.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the only problem I see with this is
the legality of advancing the $40,000 if, in fact, we're not able to get it
repaid in a relatively short period of time. Is that correct, David?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. The initial analysis has to
determine if there's going to be any advancement of money at all,
particularly from an ad valorem source, that there is a public purpose
or benefit to this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have another source other than ad
valorem that could be used for this purpose?
MR. MOONEY: Can I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you advance it from stormwater and
not have the same legal issues on short-term repayment?
Page 81
July 26, 2005
MR. MUDD: Stormwater is ad valorem, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay. All right. But you've
segregated it for --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, but it is ad valorem. Remember that .15
mills?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right, okay. All right.
This is in Commissioner Halas' district. I hope we're going to
have a motion forthcoming pretty quickly; otherwise, we're going to
be into lunchtime.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. MOONEY: This is what we were told to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes.
MR. MOONEY: And we've done everything __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion that we approve
this, but it's a cap of $40,000.
MR. MOONEY: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: See if we got a second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta, for approval
with a cap of $40,000.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have further comments?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I just want to mention one
little thing. I've been against this situation a number of times.
Everything is similar but it had to do with private roads out in the
agricultural area. Always had a small number of people that were
interested.
Normally the people had to come together, and it was always a
small number of people that contributed the money, a small number of
people that did the work. This is universal.
Page 82
~~--_..."._-----_.._------~-
July 26, 2005
The only way you'll ever get compliance with the rest of your
neighbors is through government, like you're doing, and I just want to
commend you for going forward and pulling this together, the
neighborhood's all coming together on this. You're going to find a lot
of other positive things happening from your interaction, and it's my
pleasure to give a second.
MR. MOONEY: Thanks for that comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Goodjob.
MR. MOONEY: It's been a long time. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I would indicate, your approval
then is an approval of the Resolution, which is a part of this agenda
item package.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's correct.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Item # 1 OA
RESOLUTION 2005-281: AUTHORIZING THE BORROWING OF
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000,000 FROM THE
POOLED COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM OF THE
FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMISSION
Page 83
July 26, 2005
PURSUANT TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
COMMISSION IN ORDER TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OF
THE CARIBBEAN GARDENS PROPERTY; AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF A LOAN NOTE OR NOTES TO EVIDENCE
SUCH BORROWING; AGREEING TO SECURE SUCH LOAN
NOTE OR NOTES WITH A COVENANT TO BUDGET AND
APPROPRIATE LEGALLY A V AILABLE NON-AD VALOREM
REVENUES AS PROVIDED IN THE LOAN AGREEMENT;
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF SUCH
OTHER DOCUMENTS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO EFFECT
SUCH BORROWING; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is item lOA.
It's a recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing the
borrowing of an amount not to exceed $40 million from the pooled
commercial paper loan program of the Florida Local Government
Finance Commission pursuant to the loan agreement between the
Board of County Commissioners and the commission in order to
financial the acquisition of Caribbean Gardens property; authorizing
the execution of a loan note or notes to evidence such borrowing;
agreeing to secure such loan note or notes with a covenant to budget
and appropriate legally available non-ad valorem revenues as provided
in the loan agreement; authorizing the execution and delivery of such
other documents as may be necessary to effect such borrowing; and
providing an effective date.
Mr. Michael Smykowski, the director of office of management
and budget, along with myself, will present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski, O&B director.
Page 84
July 26, 2005
The origin of this executive summary was actually during a
finance committee meeting that Mr. Mudd joined us with in regard to
an update to the potential acquisition of the Caribbean Gardens
property, and he asked the finance committee two simple questions;
one, what is the time requirement typically associated with a general
obligation bond issue? The answer was 90 to 120 days.
The second question he asked was, what if we reach agreement
as to a price in the near short-term and the settlement documents, and
we need to close within 30 to 60 days, what will be the financing
mechanism that will be in place to allow us to bring about that -- allow
us to close on that property and obviously transfer the funds to the __
to the seller.
Frankly, there wasn't a good answer at that point. We worked
with our financial adviser through the finance committee to establish
the commercial paper loan so that we would have the interim
financing mechanism available to effectuate that transfer at the $40
million level, and we held that at the maximum that was authorized in
the initial voter referendum that was approved approximately 18
months ago.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Now, Commissioner, I said that I would
-- that I'd also be -- that I'd also be -- can you hear me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all right.
MR. MUDD: That I'd also be presenting. I want to make sure--
and this has never been seen before, at least to the public and to you as
a Board of County Commissioners because I've pretty much kept the
appraisals under wraps to see if we could work out an agreement.
You will see that the County appraisals are on top, and Chuck is
-- Mr. Carrington, our head of real estate, so if you want to figure out
who that is where he sent a message to me. We received appraisals
initially of 48 million and 46 million from our appraisers, and they
were Coastal Engineering appraisals and Integra Realty Resources.
Page 85
July 26, 2005
That average amount would have been $47 million. Somebody's
math isn't -- I've got to talk to Chuck about going back. And the
appraisal from the family -- if you remember correctly, the original
appraisal firm that the family had, there was an illness in the family
and they had to come up with another appraisal rather late in the
game, and they replaced their original appraiser with Hanson Realty
(sic) Estates Advisors, Inc., out of -- I believe it's out of Fort Myers.
And their estimate of the appraisal amount is $67.5 million.
There was a big disparity between these particular amounts. And
I talked to the Trust for Public Lands representative, Mr. John
Garrison, who's handling -- is basically the middle man for us in his
agency for the County, and the County Commissioners approved that
transaction prior to the board meeting.
I talked to him about getting a certification, a critique by an
independent firm, and that was done by Urban Reality Solutions, a
Tampa Bay firm, and I have those results here.
The independent basically found issues with all three appraisals,
and those results were provided to all three licensed appraisal firms.
And you'll notice that the appraisal values on the far right column
were the results of the appraisal firms going back and taking a look at
their initial appraisal.
You'll notice that Coastal Engineers appraisals adjusted their
appraisal amount from 48 million to 52 million, Integra basically
stayed the same at 46, and Hanson Real Estate Advisers did not
change their asking price of 67.5.
It was asked by Mr. Garrison on Friday if he could offer $49
million for the purchase price of the zoo to the Fleischmann family,
and I gave him the okay that he could do that. It wasn't two hours
later that I received a letter from Mr. John Passidomo, who's the legal
representative for the Fleischmann owners in this particular endeavor,
that basically said that the family would not honor the County
appraisals at the present time because he basically considered them
Page 86
July 26, 2005
flawed, and that their market asking price is still sixty-seven five.
He did mention in his letter that he would let us go out and get an
independent -- another ind -- another appraisal, licensed appraiser
independent of County business in the past, present, and future, the
best that we could ascertain about the future, to do a -- to do an
appraisal.
I've talked to Mr. Garrison about that particular issue. We want
to come to some -- at least figure out what the price is, because as it
stands right now in real estate -- and this market is going up two
percent a month. And at that rate, we keep this going much longer,
and the price will double before we know it.
And so I talked to Mr. Garrison about the likelihood of taking
URS, which is Urban Realty Solutions -- and their president is a Mr.
Linwood Gilbert out of Tampa, and because they were the honest
broker, so to speak, that did the critique on the three previous
appraisals, if he could get that firm to do that independent appraisal.
Now, we've never done business with Mr. Gilbert before in the
past, we're not doing business with him presently. Trust for Public
Lands is. And we don't really believe that in the future we'll do
business with Mr. Gilbert because that firm is in Tampa.
Now, that firm is familiar with all three appraisals and is familiar
with the situation, and Mr. Garrison basically is of the opinion that we
could get that appraisal turned around in a relatively short order
because the firm is already familiar with the parcel of land and in the
particular issues that surround it for the purchase.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you need authorization then from the
board to get this independent appraisal?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would ask you -- I would ask this
board for that approval to at least back my conversations with Mr.
Garrison. Both he and I think that it would be a logical next step. We
don't believe that because this -- this independent had some issues
with all three, we have no idea what they would come up with for an
Page 87
July 26, 2005
appraised value, but I believe it's the next logical step in this process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, in the interest of trying to get to a
final price here, can we separate these two issues, one, the commercial
paper issue for the $40 million and the appraisal issue? Can we
separate those, and I'll ask the board members if __
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. When we do the first one, let's ask to go
out and get this appraisal from URS __
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: -- in the process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any objections from County
Commissioners for providing guidance to staff to do that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How are we going to -- the first
one is going to be guidance to give the County Manager the authority
to go out and purchase commercial paper up to 40 million; is that
right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. MUDD: No. Right now I'm only talking about the next
appraisal, okay? And basically -- Mr. Passidomo basically said, their
standing price is sixty-seven five. He said, you can go out and get
another independent appraisal if you'd like, okay, in order to figure out
what the County's appraised value is, but they will not honor the -- any
offer based on the County's appraisal as it stands.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there a real problem with our
appraisers that we normally use?
MR. MUDD: Sir, they're all licensed. They're all licensed
appraisals in the State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Mudd, is there any
rationale between the $40,000 (sic) that we have got from the
taxpayers, and the sixty -- what is it, 65?
MR. MUDD: Sixty-seven point five million dollars.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there -- how is the difference?
Page 88
July 26, 2005
How could a difference be explained? Is there any kind of rationale
at all in there for those numbers to come up to be what they are?
MR. MUDD: Well, that's what the appraisals came up with, sir.
I have some speculation on my own part, but that's my own -- that's
my own opInIon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, the point I think we need to make
is that certainly nobody ever expected that you'd be able to peg the
exact sales price at a Resolution that was put before the voters over a
year ago. So, you know, the $40,000 (sic) was not the purchase price.
It was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Forty million.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Forty million dollars was not the
purchase price. It was the amount of money that we thought we
needed to close the deal with whatever other resources we could pull
together.
Commissioner Halas, and then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. It is my understanding when
we had this workshop, we made it very clear at that time that the
parties that came before us lobbying us to put this on the ballot -- I
believe we had some people then that were familiar with real estate in
the area.
And if my memory serves me correctly, they would talk about 28
million to 35 million. That's why we came up with a bond issue of
about 40 million. We also empowered that group to go out and start
soliciting funds, which to my knowledge there hasn't been any money
raised in this endeavor.
Now, I hope they don't feel that the County is going to step up to
the plate and pay the full amount of $67 and a half million. I was
charged with spending only $40 million. This is what the taxpayers
told me that they were willing to put up front in regards to this -- this
preservation of this zoo and lands around it.
So I think that's where I stand on this. And until further notice,
Page 89
'"-- --... ,_.,------
July 26, 2005
until the voters tell me differently, that's where I stand at.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Another couple points there,
and that is, yes, I understand also that's what the voters voted for, $40
million. And when they voted in Conservation Collier, they voted in a
separate bill completely. That was to obtain other lands, and I don't
think that they meant for Conservation Collier dollars to go into this
proj ect, by the way.
I think -- and this is my personal opinion, and I probably
shouldn't be saying it out loud. But, you know, I guess you can -- if
you hire an appraiser and you tell him I want to go for the highest
price ever and, no, that's not high enough, better go back again and
again and again, you can get whatever appraisal you want, right?
But having said that, it looks like they're going to stick to that
price. I think that we should go back and, part one of this, and ask Mr.
Mudd to get this appraisal as you were just talking about, the third
appraisal, third and final appraisal now, so I make a motion to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I think we've already done that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we haven't.
MS. FILSON: We haven't done it by motion. I've got a speaker.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I asked if there was any objection to
providing guidance to the County Manager to get another appraisal,
and there was no objection.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, I'm sorry. That's not a
motion, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it doesn't have to be. You're
providing guidance. It's not even on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I shall withdraw my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We were providing guidance to
the County Manager to go get another appraisal.
Page 90
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'll raise objections,
because I need to discuss more on it myself before I feel comfortable
with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: More on what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On the subject matter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: On the appraisal or on -_
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On the appraisal. Why -- if I
may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you. My problem
is, we have got the word from -- and maybe I'm wrong. If their price
is $67.5 million, we can get another appraisal if we want, but their
price is still $67.5 million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that what they're saying?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what they're saying.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, they said they would entertain
another independent appraisal. Mr. Garrison has talked to Mr.
Passidomo about that -- because I talked to Mr. Garrison yesterday.
Well, I talked to him last night again. He was on the road.
But I talked to him Friday night late, and I talked to him again
yesterday. He has talked to Mr. Passidomo, and he basically said that
he mentioned URS as the independent. They didn't have -- he didn't
seem to have any problems with that particular person because that
particular firm was the independent firm that we asked to critique the
appraisals when we first got them in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, I, for one, am in total
agreement with Commissioner Halas on this. I've been charged by the
taxpayers for $40 million to go out there and spend that amount of
money. I know there's some interest out in the community that is
very, very strong in the direction that we scrap everything that we
have and put every dollar we can possibly come up with to make this
Page 91
July 26, 2005
happen. I'm not one of those people.
Forty million dollars is the number that I'm sticking with, and I
don't -- I'm not willing to budge with it. I think that we're past the
point of being rational. The only way I'll agree to do different with it
would be -- is if we bought the land with the idea that we're going to
sell part of it off as commercial to be able to cover the difference
between the 40,000 (sic) and the selling price.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Forty million.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forty million.
MR. MUDD: If I can address Commissioner Coletta's statement.
And I need to finish my presentation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: But I will tell you, if we're going to get anything
off of sixty-seven five based on the offer that's there, based on Mr.
Passidomo's letter to me at 4:40 on Friday, the only option we have
available is to get an independent -- another independent appraisal,
and I believe we can do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me boil this down to the bottom line.
MR. MUDD: Now, the other --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Let me just make sure
everybody understands where this goes. The representatives of the
Fleischmann property think that our two appraisals are too low. So if
they average their appraisal and our appraisal, they're going to come
up with a price that they think is too low.
They're thinking if we get a more unbiased appraisal, the
appraisal might come in higher. And then if you average that higher
appraisal with their appraisal, it might come out to be a price that
everybody can live with.
The point always has been that whatever our accurate appraisal is
would be averaged with their appraisal, and we would meet
somewhere in the middle. That's what the likely outcome is. So no, I
don't think anybody is stuck on the sixty-seven five. It's just that they
Page 92
July 26, 2005
don't want to average their sixty-seven five with the low appraisal of
49.
They're hoping that a more independent appraisal will come in a
little higher. It costs us very little money to see if that is true. We -- I
think we should go ahead with that, and there is no pledge to
taxpayers that we're violating to do that. We've already given
guidance to the County Manager to do it. Let's get it done.
Now, the next part of this process is to ask for approval to go out
and get commercial paper for the $40 million that has already been
approved. You're not violating any pledges with the voters at all.
They said, you can go -- you can take $40 million and do this. We're
going to tax ourselves and give you $40 million to do it.
All the County Manager's asking for is the right to go get
commercial paper in the amount of $40 million. He's not asking to
purchase this property. He's not asking to pay $67.5 million for it. All
he's asking to do is to put in place what has already been approved, the
$40 million, and get another appraisal to make sure our appraisals are
correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I would make a motion that we
approve the commercial paper proposal to finance the $40 million that
we already have approval to spend and to get another appraisal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I'll second that motion,
and I know we have speakers waiting as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And there are three speakers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is all fine and good, but I want
to know where we're going to get the additional funds. No matter
what that third estimate is, where are we going to get the money?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How do you know there will be
additional funds?
Page 93
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm going to wait and see
exactly --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're going to find out how much
money's going to be raised on the outside to offset the cost.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's right. And that's a subject
for the next discussion when it comes back for us about what we're
going to do with it once we've got a price.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Halas just about
said it all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have great concerns over
where this money's supposed to come from, $40 million. Tell me this,
what are we paying for the process to get to that where we okay the
fact that the money will be available when we get ready?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it takes -- it takes 45 days to get
this set up from the time that we take it out. The beauty of
commercial paper, it doesn't have a penalty for early payoff. And
every new month after you pay principal, they basically set a new
loan. I wish all mortgages were like commercial paper.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you do commit to the loan?
MR. MUDD: But you can pay it off. You don't commit to it
until you draw it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't draw it until you buy the
property, and you don't buy the property until you know what the
price it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why don't we ask our budget
director.
Page 94
July 26, 2005
MR. MUDD: Why don't we ask Mr. -- the Clerk.
MR. JOHNSSEN: Derek Johnssen. All you're doing here is
enacting the Resolution to borrow. You're not actually going to
borrow the money. I mean --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes or no?
MR. JOHNSSEN: -- it just puts the infrastructure in place.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: What Mr. Johnssen said is true. Until such
time as you execute an order with the commercial paper loan program
to physically draw the money, there is no cost incurred as of today.
You are just putting a mechanism in place should you need it.
Nothing more.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'll go along with it, but I
think the message is clear that we're sending out to the seller and to
the rest of the community, either get behind this thing ifit's going to
be over 40 million or sell this thing to us for 40 million, or Mr. Mudd,
you find a way to sell off the front portion for commercial to cover the
additional costs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You got it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many of you are going to
be here tomorrow for -- to continue this meeting?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I won't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's going to be
Commissioner Coletta and I?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll be here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Three of us; we've got enough.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we've got some land use
decisions up here. I suggest that we kick this in second gear and move
this meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's exactly right. We're getting way
Page 95
July 26, 2005
behind here.
So we're doing nothing but what we've already been authorized
to do. So let's do it. Okay.
Now, we've got a speaker, okay. Do you really want to speak?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who is it?
MS. FILSON: The speaker is David Tetzlaff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then David is not going to speak,
right?
MR. TETZLAFF: Not if I'm getting in your way, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I'll call the question. We
have a motion and a second to approve the staffs recommendation that
they pursue commercial paper loan for the $40 million that was
authorized by the taxpayers, by the voters, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. MUDD: And let me go get a -- and let me go get that--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've already gotten the guidance
about the appraisal.
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, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2005-282: THE PROPOSED MILLAGE RATES AS
THE MAXIMUM PROPERTY TAX RATES TO BE LEVIED IN
Page 96
July 26, 2005
FY 2006 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOB, which
is a recommendation to adopt the proposed millage rates as the
maximum property tax rates to be levied in FY -2006, and Mr. Michael
Smykowski, the director of office and management and budget will
present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Again, Michael Smykowski, O&B
director, for the record.
Weare here to adopt the tax rates as the maximum rate that could
be levied for the FY-'06 budget. We must provide these tax rates to
the property appraiser by August 4th of each year, and then he
subsequently prepares the TRIM notices, the truth in millage notices
that go out to each property owner so they understand the
implications, tax implications on their individual property based on
the proposed millage rates that have been adopted by each of the
respective governing bodies, school boards, cities, County and the
like, as well as the impact of any increase in assessed value on an
individual property, so each owner is required by law to receive that.
That's the prelude then to the public hearing process in
September. That is the official notification, so it gives people their
individual tax situation prior to those public hearings. It also provides
the advance notice of the first scheduled budget public hearing.
It is important to note that during the September public hearings,
the board can maintain or lower the millage rates with any taxing unit
at the level adopted today . You cannot raise the rates above the level
approved today without meeting some fairly onerous public notice and
advertising requirements. So this is kind of worst-case scenario
ultimately for the taxpayer.
In terms of tax rates, the general fund millage and the
unincorporated, which are the primary taxing authorities of the
County, the general fund millage is proposed at 3.8772, which is the
Page 97
July 26, 2005
same tax rate as that levied in the prior fiscal year. The
unincorporated millage is .8069. Again, that is same tax rate as
adopted in fiscal year 2005.
There is included in this a .15 mill tax levy for costs associated
with the Caribbean Gardens property. Again, that's the maximum for
the $40 million. The maximum millage levy that was authorized in
the referendum question was .15 mills.
I need to bring one other thing to your attention, the Goodland
fire millage. During the budget workshops, we had indicated that we
had received a proposal that we've had an ongoing contractual
agreement with the City of Marco Island. They've provided fire
service to the GoodlandlHorr's Island area over the last six years for
approximately $56,600 per year. That agreement has expired.
The City of Marco Island provided Mr. Ochs with a letter
requesting a two mill tax levy to fund that -- continue that fire service
contract. Through negotiations, we've been able to reduce that.
And in your proposed millage, the proposed millage for the
GoodlandlHorr's Island fire district is 1.3632, which is considerably
less, obviously, than the initial two mills that was proposed by the
City of Marco Island.
And you also need to know, in the event that, because Goodland
would be outside the boundaries of any other fire district, if there were
no other provider to step in de facto, that would fall to the Collier
County fire district, which is a two mill tax levy as well.
So the important thing, I guess, from -- while Goodland residents
will be seeing an increase in the cost of that fire service, the
worst-case scenario of the two mills, that would either be -- was the
initial proposal for Marco Island, or the alternative of having them
being provided fire service through the Collier County fire district of
two mills has been avoided. So the recommendation for the
GoodlandlHorr's Island fire, again, is 1. --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have to read all of these?
Page 98
July 26, 2005
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir, not until the final public hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we just make a --
MR. MUDD: We wanted to make sure -- Mike wanted to make
sure, because this fire district was important. We got a letter that said
that the .4 mills that they were charged for fire would not be honored
by the City of Marco Island. They said they recommended two. We
got it down to about 1.3 --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Six.
MR. MUDD: -- 6, which is the best we could get with them, so
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's --
MR. MUDD: But that's an increase of about .8 mills for them for
fire.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: What we would need from the board today
is a motion to adopt the -- adopt the Resolution adopting the proposed
property tax rates for fiscal year 2006 as detailed in the attachments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, and then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'd like to make a motion
to adopt -- to approve the tax rate for the financial year 2006 as
detailed in the attachment with the understanding that we can take
everything into consideration in September and lower it at that time if
we so determine it's acceptable.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner -- okay. We have a
motion by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mike, we can -- we can lower
any of the fund totals or fund categories, including the general and
unincorporated?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Any of the tax rates can be lowered
Page 99
July 26, 2005
for any of the millages identified in the attachment. Any of the
MSTU s, as well as the general fund or unincorporated general fund at
the public hearings.
The staff recommendation obviously is to adopt the millages as
proposed and take that public input through those -- through those
hearings, hear what the public has to say before you make a final
decision relative to millage adjustments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we have a -- I have a motion
to adopt the proposed millage rates as contained in Exhibit A of item
number lOB. I would like to add that that means that the general fund
millage rate will stay exactly the same as it was last year and the year
before and the year before that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or lower.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or lower.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It will not go above the figure that it has
been for the last two or three years.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I'll call the question.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's approved.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Time out for lunch. We'll be back here
at one o'clock.
Page 100
July 26, 2005
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, County
Manager. Where do we go from here?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to our one p.m. time
certain.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Thank
you.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2005-40: 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 ~74201, AND REPLACING SAME
IN ~74-401(A); AMENDING ARTICLE IV PERTAINING TO THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISIONS TO ELIMINATE
PROVISIONS FOR WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING; 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-
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's 8A.
MR. MUDD: 8A, sir. This item, again, to be heard at one p.m.
Page 101
July 26, 2005
This item was continued from the June 28,2005, BCC meeting.
It's a recommendation to approve an Ordinance to the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending chapter
74 of the code of laws and Ordinances amended by Ordinance number
2001-13, the Collier County consolidated impact fee Ordinance as
amended, repealing a portion of 74-201 and replacing same in
74-40 1 (A), amending article IV pertaining to the affordable housing
provisions to eliminate provisions for a waiver impact fees for
affordable housing; establishing a ceiling on the amount of impact fee
deferrals; reorganizing provisions in article 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.
Mr. Cormac Giblin, your affordable -- your affordable housing
person in Community Development, manager -- excuse me, person __
manager, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Got a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ijust wanted to thank Cormac
Giblin for the excellent job he did in drawing this up. This not only
meets the needs of a certain element of our low income people that
need affordable housing.
Mr. Mudd, is that a signal I'm supposed to know about?
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry, sir. It's eight speakers. I'm trying to get
Sue to make sure that the chairman knows.
Page 102
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And not only does it
meet that need, but it has a de minimis affect upon the budget. It truly
meets all the needs in Collier County for what I think we stand for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, we do have eight speakers.
How many speakers here are opposed to this amendment? Are the
eight speakers here? Would you raise your hands.
Do you really want to speak and have us reverse our position?
Okay. Does everybody waive?
MS. FILSON: Well, should I call their names to make sure?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can call the names if they want to.
MS. FILSON: Michael Werner?
MR. WERNER: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Bill Klohn?
MR. KLOHN: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Bill Varian?
MR. VARIAN: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: Kathy Pattersen?
MS. PATTERSEN: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Janet Fritts?
MS. FRITTS: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Sam Durso?
MR. DURSO: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Laurel Paster?
MS. PASTER: Waive.
MS. FILSON: And Frank Rodriguez?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Waive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's good. Now let's disapprove
it.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 103
---~-_. -_.~-^.
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4-0, with Commissioner Fiala
absent.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that --ladies and gentlemen, if you
could please leave quietly, we have more business to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But quickly.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2005-41: PUDZ-2004-AR-6631, BIG BEAR PLAZA
CPUD, NORMAN TAYLOR, REPRESENTED BY KELLY
SMITH, OF DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC., REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM THE ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD)
ZONING DISTRICT FOR LOW INTENSITY TRANSITIONAL
COMMERCIAL LAND USES, CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL
LAND USES AND INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL LAND
USES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 5.46
ACRES, IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GA TE BOULEVARD AND
EVERGLADES BOULEVARD, WITHIN SECTION 5,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: No, I won't say quickly.
Sir, the next item is item 8B, and this item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
Page 104
July 26, 2005
It's PUDZ-2004-AR-6631, Big Bear Plaza, CPUD, Norman
Taylor represented by Kelly Smith of Davidson Engineering, Inc.,
requesting a rezone from Estates zoning district to the commercial
planned unit development zoning district for low intensity transitional
commercial land uses, convenience commercial land uses and
intermediate commercial land uses.
The subject property consisting of 5.46 acres is located at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and
Everglades Boulevard within Section 5, Township 49 south, Range 28
east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What item are you on again; what
is it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 8B.
MR. MUDD: We are 8B, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 8B.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's where I thought we were.
Commissioner Halas -- well, let's get everybody sworn in first.
Would you please swear in everyone who is going to provide
testimony in this particular hearing.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Now for ex parte
disclosure by Commissioners.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have, on this particular
item, 8B, I have e-mails that were addressed to me, and I also talked to
staff about this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've had e-mails, talked to
staff, and I also had numerous meetings with the petitioner, his
representatives, civic associations, and a number of concerned
citizens.
Page 105
July 26, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have received correspondence and
e-mails concerning this issue, and they're all part of my file.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received an e-mail or two.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we're ready to go.
MS. SMITH: Good afternoon. I'm Kelly Smith with Davidson
Engineering. I'm here today in behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Faust and Mr.
and Mrs. Taylor in their request to rezone a property that is
approximately 5.46 acres in size located at the northeast corner of
Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard.
The property is within the neighborhood center of the Estates,
mixed use designation as identified on the future land use map and
described in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
The property is proposed to be rezoned to a commercial PUD for
low intensity transitional and commercial land uses, maintenance
commercial land uses, and intermediate commercial land uses.
The proposed uses include retail, office, and a convenience store.
The owners of the property are also interested in developing a gas
station; however, there are some issues with well field protection
criteria and other regulations associated with the location.
The proposed PUD is compliant with the Golden Gate area
master plan regulations of the Growth Management Plan for
neighborhood centers, including uses, landscape buffer, native
vegetation preservation, access and architectural style.
We did meet with the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association,
and at that meeting they raised a number of issues and agreed we __
my clients agreed to the following amendments, and they're included
in the PUD document.
We've removed general merchandise SIC code 5331 from the
permitted use list, relocated that to the prohibited uses. That would
have allowed a dollar type store, and the residents in that area didn't
feel that was a use that they were interested in.
Page 106
July 26, 2005
We also removed automobile parking, which would be like a
rental type lot, and amended the group home allowance so that there's
no overnight residential use allowed.
There was also a concern over the architectural style. And the
Golden Gate area master plan allows for old style Florida with metal
roof or tile, and the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association asked us to
limit the architectural style to old style Florida.
We have two local commercial establishments that we
photographed to show an example of the intended style of
development as far as the architecture is concerned.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Halas was first.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. When I read through the
information that was given in my packet, I had some concerns in
regards to the traffic impact. My concern is that I think it was way
underestimated.
I've traveled out in that general area, and when I come upon -- it
used to be G's, now it's E's -- the amount of traffic that is incurred at
that location of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard -- and I know that
we have some real issues presently on Golden Gate Boulevard and
Everglades Boulevard. And I'm wondering how you're going to
address that, because I feel that the traffic count that you have for the
a.m. and p.m. is way underestimated.
MS. SMITH: The traffic study takes into account that most of
the traffic, this type of a use in this type of a location, is passerby
traffic and is not people traveling specifically to that location from
elsewhere.
I will certainly acknowledge that there are transportation issues
in that area, and part of the PUD references future widening of that
intersection and right-of-way needs along both of those frontages.
And the planning board also recommended a stipulation for a
deceleration lane to be installed on Everglades to accommodate people
Page 107
July 26, 2005
slowing down to enter the project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't believe that the
Commissioner has the Planning Commission's recommendations, do
they? Have you seen a copy of them? I know if __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I haven't gotten a copy, and __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you'd put them up there, I'd
like to go through a couple of the details here. This -- by the way, I
commend you for going forward to the Golden Gate Civic Association
and working with them and their leadership. It helps to move the
process forward. It seems like there are a couple of things we've still
got to iron out.
You've done an excellent job of meeting the needs of the
community, and this is a facility that's -- is being embraced with open
arms in that particular area; however, there is concerns over the
acceleration lane and all that, and I think that they have met those
needs.
There's one item in here that has to do with the -- item four on
here. I met with Mark Strain just the other day and a representative
from the civic association, Mark Teeters, and I told him that item four
was not something that I would consider as acceptable, a letter of
acceptance for the architectural components of the subj ect property
from the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association be submitted with the
SDP application for the subject property.
In other words, that would be past our authority. These people
would be the final authority for approval, and that's just not right. We
would get into all sorts of problems if something like this was to take
place, and they understood.
And I said, what are you looking for? And they said, the thing
we're looking for is a definition of old Florida style that gives it
something -- a level of comfort. They said the style that's presently in
the description of the PUD form is inadequate. It's open for
Page 108
July 26, 2005
discussion.
I said, well, what would you like to see? And they said, we'd like
to see the -- something similar to what they did for the Wilson PUD,
which was old Florida style on Wilson Boulevard. And so I've asked
the petitioner to consider putting that wording in and the pictures.
And I take it these pictures are part of that?
MS. SMITH: Yes. I don't have the specific language from the
Wilson Boulevard PUD, but I am familiar with it and know that this is
the same architectural sty le. We'll put that in.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we need the actual
language from that to be able to give that level of comfort. And if you
agree to that, you remove the last obstacle as far as the civic
association has with this particular item, and if you would do that.
Other than that, everything else seems to be in line. Now, the
only thing I might ask is when the time comes, if Mr. Feder or Don
Scott might like to comment on the right-of-way and any other
transportation element problems that haven't been addressed yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion for approval
based -- after I hear from Norm Feder or Don Scott.
MS. SMITH: If I could, Chairman, there were two other
stipulations in the planning board's recommendation for approval that
we'd like to ask for the board's consideration on removing those
stipulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's that?
MS. SMITH: The first is the hours of operation, and the other is
the requirement for a bus shelter.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The hours of operation, if that
was worded in such a way that -- are you talking about like a
substation or something?
MS. SMITH: Well, the issue is that this was presented as -- it
was presented at the planning board as an issue that was considered to
Page 109
July 26, 2005
be a very strong issue by the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association.
And this was discussed at our meeting with them, but there wasn't a
general consensus.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I can tell you, as the
Commissioner for District 5, I think those hours are adequate. At
some point in time if the actual tenant that gets in the building figures
that those hours aren't adequate and they have something to offer to
the public that is desirable after 11 o'clock at night -- and I don't know
that would be that we'd want to see -- then I'm sure that this
commission would consider it in the future. But the only exception I
can think of would be a Sheriffs substation.
MS. SMITH: And that language has been modified in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And no, I'd want to keep
that where it is. What was that --
MR. WHITE: On that point --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What are the hours?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Eight to 11.
MS. SMITH: Six to 11.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Six to 11.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Six a.m. to 11 p.m.
MR. WHITE: On that point, Mr. Chairman, if I may interject.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead.
MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. The
display has before you as part of that item, the final words are with
respect to all nonessential services under number five. And with
further discussion with staff, we agree that I think the intent of the
CCPC was for it to be all nongovernmental uses. That would be a
little, maybe, I guess, broader than just the nonessential services.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I agree with you, and I
would like to see that --
MR. WHITE: Okay. So that is what the PUD text is that's being
recommended for your consideration.
Page 110
---.-- _....,.~,_'"__"_.m'.
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And what was your other
item?
MS. SMITH: The other item was the bus shelter. In
conversations with the Collier County school district, they have no bus
stop at that intersection now, nor do they have any plans for a bus stop
at that intersection in the future.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then what I would like to see
you do is donate that sum of money for use as a bus shelter someplace
in the immediate neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before there's a motion, the uses
are a broad range of uses. I don't have a problem with. The one I
have a problem with is 40, any other general commercial uses that is
compatible in nature with the foregoing list of permitted uses. From
previous applications, Commissioners, we have removed that because
of problems that has arisen because of that language. And I would
like to see that removed as far as a permitted use.
MR. WHITE: May I address that point, Mr. Chairman __
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
MR. WHITE: -- just so you know what the present version is. It
is a slight difference than what you probably have in your package,
and it was based in part upon what the CCPC discussion and approval
was, recommendation of approval was.
And what it now states is there are two of them, one for principal
uses and one for conditional uses. They essentially say the same, any
other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of
permitted uses as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Now, I'm just clarifying for the record so you know what it is.
I'm not making a recommendation one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I know that the items they
didn't want to see was such things as kids arcade, they didn't want to
see -- there was a whole bunch of list of items, and I assume that
Page 111
July 26, 2005
somewhere along the line we eliminated them, such as liquor store __
MS. SMITH: Yes. There is a list of prohibited uses in the PUD
document. Liquor store is included, and those --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you read that list to us,
please?
MS. SMITH: Absolutely. Prohibited uses: Drinking places,
liquor stores, mail order houses, merchandising machine operators,
power laundries, crematories, does not include non-crematory funeral
parlors, radio and TV representatives, direct mail advertising services,
recreational shooting ranges, water slides, which fall under the not
elsewhere classified 7999 classification, general hospitals, psychiatric
hospitals, specialty hospitals, elementary and secondary schools,
colleges, junior colleges, libraries, correctional institutions, waste
management, homeless shelters and soup kitchens, automobile
parking, and general merchandise stores.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I don't know what I would
want to add to that list, do you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pawn shops.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Pawn shops, yes, by all means.
It's the scourge of our society as far as I'm concerned.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me, too. Tattoo parlor?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tattoo parlors.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, those -- you know, you
don't want those kinds of things in there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you're darn right we don't. I
would also add such things -- there was a letter to the editor in the
paper that put down some different ideas that said such things as, you
know, amenities that you don't normally worry about out in the Estates
that you usually do shopping at larger box stores, such things as
furniture stores.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about adult bookstores?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, of course, I'd add that to
Page 112
July 26, 2005
the list.
MS. SMITH: And I think some of those things fall beyond the
range of C-3, so they would automatically be prohibited.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, make sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, make sure. Put it in just
for the heck of it. Just make a good --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. You know what? You want
to encourage a wholesome family community.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. That's exactly right.
The needed services that are really needed in the neighborhood.
MR. WHITE: Commissioners, can I address this point about the
distinction between uses that are in C-3 and not? Thank you.
I think the point is that rather than attempting to create a universe
of all things prohibited, that these were specific uses that otherwise
existed in those C-3 districts and were specifically pointed to and
carved out.
All other uses that are not listed as permitted uses by operation of
law are prohibited. So I don't believe it's necessary to try to go through
and name all of those things that we may think are a scourge in the
community, and it just operates by law.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the one thing that still causes some
concern is the catchall category that says, any other general
commercial use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing list.
Compatibility in nature with that foregoing list is very, very difficult
to determine, and I'm wondering if we cannot eliminate that catchall
category .
You should know generally what you want to do with this
property, and you should have included those descriptions in the
permitted uses. Can we do away with this very general and vague
catchall clause here?
MS. SMITH: I think that we have captured the uses that we
intend in the list of permitted uses. I would just want to make sure
Page 113
July 26, 2005
that it's understood that to qualify under that "any other general use"
would further require another public hearing from the Board of Zoning
Appeals. So it's not as if a tenant could simply go in with something
that wasn't part of that list and have staff approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we will make the determination as to
whether or not it's compatible --
MS. SMITH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- is that correct?
MS. SMITH: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does that satisfy your concern,
Commissioner Henning?
That was your concern, I think, wasn't it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Mr. White clarified it.
And actually if we just remove the language, they have to come back
to the --
MR. WHITE: I think that is accurate, and it's probably more
consistent with what the LDC otherwise says in terms of any of your
zoning districts, not just PUDs alone, for folks who want to make
some type of an argument that something is similar to an existing
listed permitted use. There is a process for that generally.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we've sorted out all of the
concerns with respect to the conditions specified by the Planning
Commission, and I guess we've added some of our own.
So is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion but I--
to approve this except for one thing, I still haven't heard about the
transportation element. I really need to know as far as, did we do
everything, our due diligence on it, do we have everything we're
supposed to have, or are we -- or is there a hole still in this?
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. We've
worked with the developer's representative to reserve 40 feet of
right-of-way for both Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevard for the
Page 114
July 26, 2005
future widening of both those roadways that are programmed in the
five-year work program, and it's in -- the language is included in the
PUD that essentially we're going to better define that right-of-way
during the site development plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This right-of-way's being
donated, right?
MR. SCOTT: At the moment is says reserved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh. How come every single
PUD that comes forward here donates those right-of-ways, and now
all of a sudden we've got one that's coming back to us that wants us to
pay for it? That's not the way it works. On that basis alone, I would
be -- I would prefer to not approve this particular PUD.
MR. WHITE: Could I add some comment on that--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please.
MR. WHITE: -- on what the CCPC discussion was? And
Commissioners, one of the provisions in here that you'll see on
number one on the visualizer has to do with the idea that there would
be a 25-foot landscape buffer. That is something that's required by the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan. That in combination with the 40- foot
right-of-way creates a difficulty with this size of parcel in order to
implement some of the uses that they're contemplating.
And all I'm suggesting is, that very much what that first condition
says, is that they're going to need to have a Growth Management Plan
amendment approved in order to do anything to modify that 25-foot
landscape buffer, and they understand that, and they recognize that it
is something that the current law requires, and until that law is
changed, it will be required on their site plan.
So I know that it is downstream in their future to try to, perhaps,
amend that provision. Maybe it is limited to activity centers, I don't
know. But in any event, at this point I think that the discussion was
similar in front of the CCPC as to whether the right-of-way should be
compensated for or should be a condition of zoning.
Page 115
July 26, 2005
And the motion that was passed and the recommendation that
was brought before you was for one where I believe impact fee credits
were something that would be allowed in exchange for the reservation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Scott, what is the
approximate value of this land we're talking about? We're talking
about real dollars.
MR. SCOTT: It's about a half an acre, so what's acreage going
for out there? Hundred fifty, 200,000 an acre, something like that, so
half that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be $100,000.
MR. SCOTT: Hundred and fifty maybe.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But I'm kind of curious
to why all of a sudden we're talking about maybe back peddling when
every single PUD we've been approving we got the right-of-way from
at least maybe -- as far as I know we have. Maybe we slipped up on a
couple.
MR. SCOTT: Definitely -- I mean, we definitely want donations
when we can get them. But, you know, this was a small parcel, and a
large impact to it. So, you know, it was balancing it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would the petitioner be willing
to donate right-of-way?
MS. SMITH: If you can bear with me a second. I want to put
the site plan up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I say something while that's
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. Go ahead. Commissioner Halas is
really next, but if you've got something pertinent to this point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I have concerns for the
last meetings that we're doing contract zoning. There is a public
purpose into this PUD. Something that the board wants is to put
commercial uses within Golden Gate Estates.
And, you know, when we -- when we demand to say you've got
Page 116
July 26, 2005
to provide moneys to affordable housing projects in Immokalee, when
we demand above our laws and Ordinances of Collier County, I think
we ought to be careful of saying, well, if you don't do that, I'm not
going to support it. That's what I consider contract zoning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't agree with you,
Commissioner Henning. We've been extracting -- not extracting, but
negotiating, and that's what we're doing at this point in time, with the
developers for some time and saving the taxpayers of this County
millions and millions and million of dollars, moving our road projects
forward with the money we've saved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then let's make a law.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's down the road, too.
But meanwhile, if we're doing something illegal, I'm sure we'll hear
about it in very short order. I don't think we are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't say illegal.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe are, then we should be
back peddling and giving reimbursements to everybody and his
brother out there.
I think we've made some very good agreements with people out
there. We've made a lot of people very wealthy with some of the
deals we've put down. This is the way we compensate the public that's
there now so they know they're getting the very best for their dollar.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I still have some real concerns
about the traffic impact out there, and I really need to have that
addressed. When you drive out in that area now at that particular
location, that intersection, it is -- it's a gridlock situation. And with the
advent of putting this there, I'm wondering, how soon are we going to
six -lane that intersection?
MR. SCOTT: Six lanes for Golden Gate Boulevard is 2009, I
believe. The six lanes for Everglades is 2010. Now, they are subject
to concurrency even though they're asking for the zoning today.
Page 11 7
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the figures that were published
in their documentation, is that figures that you agree with, or is this
just figures that the petitioner put together in order to have something
aboard, when they're talking about the a.m. and p.m. figures?
And like -- as I said earlier, when you travel out there at Wilson
and Everglades Boulevard and you see the impact of that particular
location in regards to the intersection -- so I'm wondering, if that is --
how much of an impact we're really going to have there.
MR. SCOTT: Well, obviously staff reviewed their analysis and
agreed with their analysis.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You agree with it?
MR. SCOTT: Yes. But when it comes in for the specific site
plan, what they're specifically building, we will have traffic that's
added to the system or say, hey, we're not widened -- it's not widened
yet, there's no capacity left. You can't do it.
They might have to -- essentially, if it's a little while, it's two or
three years and it's growing at 25 percent per year on the Boulevard,
they're going to have to wait till it's widened.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think you've answered my
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we finish up with the
business that we were doing just a minute ago?
MS. SMITH: With regard to the right-of-way, I just wanted to
point out that the site is fairly constrained without that additional
right-of-way reservation.
You have a 75-foot native preserve and landscape buffer around
both of the adjacent property sides, and then there is an existing
right-of-way easement on both streets, and now an additional 40- foot
right-of-way easement along with the 25-foot landscape buffer.
This is a property that started out at 5.46 acres and ends up with a
developable area of 1.8 acres, which is 30 percent of the overall site.
And I believe the discussion at the Planning Commission was
Page 118
July 26, 2005
that while right-of-way donation is appropriate in many cases, this is
not such a case because of the overall size of the property and the
intent to put commercial where it's needed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you have -- I'm sorry. I'm
having a hard time reading this map in front of me. The bottom road,
is that Golden Gate Boulevard or Everglades?
MR. MUDD: Golden Gate Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The Boulevard. All right. And
that's the short end of it. The other end there is along Everglades, and
that's the long end of your property?
MS. SMITH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you consider a donation
of the land along the short end of it so that the public good could be
served?
MS. SMITH: If you can let me confer with my clients.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please, and that would be a
compromise and it would be fair for all.
MR. WHITE: And while they're doing that, Mr. Chairman, I'm
assuming that the motion maker's going to, whoever that is, be making
the motion for the elimination of the provisions that were of concern
to Commissioner Henning, just so we're clear on the record.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm sure that would be
done.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Mr. Chairman, my name is Mike DeRuntz.
I'm Principal Planner with the Zoning and Land Development Review
Department.
I just want to state for the record that the Planning Commission
did approve this 7-0 with the six conditions that were shown on the
visualizer. I apologize that you didn't have that incorporated as part of
your staff report.
But to facilitate the meetings with the Golden Gate Area Civic
Association, this was pushed back and just heard by the Planning
Page 119
July 26, 2005
Commission at the last meeting last week.
So there are those six. And if you would like me to read those, or
-- I could do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we can read them. They're
right in front of us.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask what you had decided,
while they're still conferring, about the bus shelter. I notice that's
number six on here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. The bus shelter might
not be appropriate in front of their building, but they would -- they
would donate money to have it built as near as possible so it benefits
the neighborhood. This was something that started with the Wilson
PUD or it worked out very well. It's a minor cost. I think it's like
$6,000.
MS. SMITH: They would be agreeable to donating of the
additional right-of-way needed along Golden Gate Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bingo. Motion for approval
with all the stipulations we talked about, including the planning stipu
-- planning -- the Planning Commission's recommendations with the
exceptions of item number -- put the glasses on, it helps a lot -- item
number four, that be stricken and in place that we have down that
they're going to use the Florida -- old Florida style as depicted before
in the Wilson Boulevard PUD, and the pictures that were shown to the
commission today, and also to include, I'm sorry, Commissioner
Henning's -- what was yours again, Commissioner Henning?
MR. WHITE: I think it was the elimination of section 3.3,
capital A 40, and capital B number 3. Those were the comparable use
prOVISIons.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I include that in the
motion. And am I missing anything?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. You specified earlier that you
Page 120
July 26, 2005
were not -- that you were going to include under prohibit uses auto
parking --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pawn shops.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- pawn shops and tattoo parlors.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And adult bookstores.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And adult bookstores. And then,
of course, that takes care of --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That covers it all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- that catchall phrase.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Excuse me. The change in the wording of
nongovernmental services --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. DeRUNTZ: -- in number five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Number five.
MR. WHITE: To noncommercial uses.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a speaker?
MS. FILSON: No, they all waived.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No speakers, okay.
MS. FILSON: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 121
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Opposition by Commissioner
Henning. It passes 5-1 (sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Four.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, 4-1.
Item #8G
RESOLUTION 2005-283: PUDEX-2005-AR-7501, LIVINGSTON
LAKES PUD; SECTION THIRTY CORPORATION, LLC,
OWNER OF THE LIVINGSTON LAKES PUD, REPRESENTED
BY DWIGHT NADEAU, OF RW A, INC., REQUESTING A 2-
YEAR PUD EXTENSION FROM FEBRUARY 23,2004 (DATE
THE PUD SUNSETTED) TO FEBRUARY 23, 2006. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 46.73 ACRES, IS
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD,
APPROXIMATELY 1;4 OF A MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD, IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 8G. It used
to be 17 A, and it reads: This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members. It's PUDEX-2005-AR-7501, Livingston Lakes PUD,
Section Thirty Corporation, LLC, owner of the Livingston Lakes
PUD, represented by Dwight Nadeau ofRW A, Inc., requesting a
two-year PUD extension from February 23,2004, which is the date of
the PUD sunset, to February 23,2006.
The subject property consists of 46.73 acres, is located on the
east side of Livingston Road, approximately a quarter of a mile south
Page 122
July 26, 2005
of Immokalee Road in Section 30, Township 48 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida.
And this item was moved to the regular -- excuse me -- to the
regular agenda under paragraph eight by Commissioner Halas. And I
believe --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. For all those planning to give
testimony in this petition, please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Now for ex parte disclosure, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hold on. I've got to find it here.
Go ahead and ask someone else.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. On 17 A, no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No disclosure for me on this
item.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None for me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Halas requested this
be pulled. It's all yours.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And I don't have any
disclosures, other than talking to staff.
My concern is that the PUD sunsetted theoretically February
2004, and the petitioner said that basically the reason that they hadn't
addressed this is that they were waiting for permits.
My concern is, that's not our problem in regards to waiting for
core permits or waiting for South Water Management permits, that I
think there's still an obligation here where the petitioner needs to
follow through to make sure that the PUD is renewed at the prescribed
time.
Page 123
July 26, 2005
It's just like when your license expires, you have an obligation to
make sure that you're within the law, and here we are a year
afterwards, almost 18 months looking for approval on this. I have
some concerns because this PUD came before us, before this Board of
County Commissioners -- I shouldn't say before us as general -- but
before the Board of County Commissioners back in 1999, and I feel at
this point in time, since so much time has lapsed, that what we need to
do is possibly look at this and have an amendment placed on this. So
there's where I stand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why are we hiring staff to have
a PUD monitoring process?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not our responsibility to
monitor PUDs in this manner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So why do we have a staff
person monitoring PUDs?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what they're doing is
monitoring PUDs that are -- that are going to be turned over to the
homeowner associations and not PUDs that are still out there. Am I
right in my assumption?
The monitoring that we do is PUDs of homeowners --
MS. MURRAY: We're monitoring for compliance of
commitments within the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the commitment it would be
the time frame --
MS. MURRAY: That would be part of it as well. The code
doesn't say you have to come in before you sunset.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. MURRAY: And so, what -- the trigger point is -- and I'm
sorry, Susan Murray, for the record. I didn't state that -- is that you're
limited to two total two-year extensions from the date it sunsets. So
this petitioner's coming in, and he would be limited to two years from
Page 124
July 26, 2005
the original approval date, I guess, is what I meant to say.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. MURRAY: So he's kind of shot himself in the foot a little
in that he's sunsetted and then spent some time coming through the
process, and he's kind of eaten up some of that two-year extension
time. So by code, he's only eligible to go till -- to the two years from
the approval date.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But a part of the PUD
monitoring process is to make sure that the PUD's in compliance with
local law?
MS. MURRAY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The sunset provision is in the
local law in the Land Development Code?
MS. MURRAY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So bottom line, we're at
fault for not catching it, too. And here's the correction, hey, get
approval from the Board of Commissioners to either extend the
sunsetting or not.
MR. SCHMITT: Can I ask for guidance here? Because this is
something -- again, Joe Schmitt, for the record, Administrator of
Community Development /Environmental Services. Not our job to
tell the petitioner when his PUD is going to sunset. It's their land. It's
their petition.
All we do is, when the petitioner comes in and submits for a local
development order, we tell them at that time, I'm sorry, your local --
PUD has sunsetted, you either need to extend it or there's a freeze on
any local development order. But we don't go out, call the petitioner
and say, your PUD is sunsetted. It's their project. I mean, that's not--
that's not staffs job to keep tabs on when a PUD sunsets. We just
don't allow any development to take place if a PUD sunsets.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So your PUD monitoring is
when construction starts?
Page 125
July 26, 2005
MR. SCHMITT: The rezoning is done by the petitioner, and
that's part of the PUD process. But you have -- you have a five-year
window in order to do some element of development, and then
thereafter periodically through PUD monitoring, we monitor the
development that's taking place.
But if they choose to do nothing in those five years, then we
basically say your PUD has sunsetted until you take some further
action, which is either amend the PUD or come before this board and
ask for an extension. But the onus is on the developer to monitor that
date. We keep track--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the answer to my question __
MR. SCHMITT: We keep track of those dates, Commissioner,
and we don't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the answer to my question __
MR. SC"HMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is, the PUD monitoring
process starts after construction ? No?
MR. SCHMITT: No. PUD monitoring starts at the moment that
it is rezoned as a PUD. We track every PUD, we track every date, we
track all the development orders that take place. But I don't -- I'm not
a -- I don't proactively write the petitioner and say, six months from
today your PUD is sunsetting, you need to take some sort of action. If
you want us to do that, we will do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. That should be the
responsibility of the person that has the PUD. It's just like if your
license expires, you have to have that -- you have to place some
burden on the people that have the PUD.
MS. MURRAY: I think I can shed a little bit of light on how we
actually monitor for sunsetting, and that is through the development
order application.
So once you have your rezoning, then typically next you would
come in for a plat, or next you would come in for a site development
Page 126
July 26, 2005
plan.
At those times of application, we require that they submit a
specific PUD monitoring form that says, here's what you were
approved for, and here is what you're applying to build, and then we
compare those against the regulations, and we keep that in our file,
and we monitor as development applications for development orders
come In.
Joe's correct, there's not somebody sitting there making sure that
somebody has actually submitted a development order to try to meet
the PUD sunsetting requirements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So I think we've got all the
essential facts here. This is a PUD that expired on February 23, 2004.
So it's been expired now about a year and a half, and we're being
asked to approve a two-year extension from February 23, 2004?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or we have the option --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or not to approve it, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not to approve it, but we can also
ask that there be an extension put on this recommended that as
pursuant to section 10.02.13, D.5 where the petitioner must submit an
amendment to the PUD and bring it up to standards as it is today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have
any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion--
MR. ANDERSON: Could we hear from the property owner who
is the actual petitioner on this matter?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Maybe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you the property owner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we'll do it on my schedule, okay?
Page 127
July 26, 2005
MR. ANDERSON: I didn't want it voted on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion on the floor. Is there
a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There could be, I just -- I had
some questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it for the sake of
discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commission -- it's been seconded
by Commissioner Fiala. Okay. Now, we'll have some more
discussion. Do you want to have your property owner discuss this
with us now?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, I would.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then let's get him up here. Are
you the property owner?
MR. ANDERSON: I am the representative of the property
owner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is the property owner here?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to be speaking then, right?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Okay. Then let's hear it.
MR. ANDERSON: My name is Bruce Anderson from the
Roetzel and Andress law firm. I represented the property owner when
the original zoning was approved, and I still represent him.
First of all, I'd like to deal with the procedural matter that
Commissioner Halas raised. The Land Development Code is very
clear. It says, prior to or at any time after the planning services
department director determines that a PUD sunsetted, the property
owner shall either initiate a PUD extension request or PUD
amendment. So we are perfectly within the letter of the law in coming
before you today at this time.
Your question is, why hasn't development of this PUD
Page 128
July 26, 2005
commenced before now? Well, there's a short answer and there's a
long answer. The short answer is that the development hasn't
commenced because the land lies along the last segment of Livingston
Road that opened within the last year, and the County and the Army
Corps of Engineers delayed permit issuance for this project pending
completion of Livingston Road.
The long answer, which I'm prepared to share with you, would be
presented, property owners, two engineers, and his land planner, who
would provide testimony of the permitting efforts that the owner has
made to develop the property in accordance with the PUD.
They will testify that the Army Corps of Engineers' application
was filed in 1999, the same year that the PUD was approved, and that
the Army Corps of Engineers somehow lost that application in 2003.
They will testify that the County would not issue its approval
until the Army Corps of Engineers issues its permit, and the Army
Corps of Engineers, in turn, would not act until after Livingston Road
construction was complete.
The Army Corps of Engineer permits could be issued within the
next six months or the next 12 months, or longer, hopefully not.
It is unlikely that by the next scheduled sunset review date for
this PUD, which is less than seven months from now, that
development would be far enough advanced on site to meet the
requirements for an exemption from PUD sunset review, and that's
even if the Army Corps issued its permits tomorrow; therefore, we
would amend our PUD extension request to seek approval today for
two two-year extensions until February 23, 2008.
In today's world of complex regulatory mazes, at the local, state,
and federal level, a two and a half year PUD extension is a reasonable,
fair, practical, and realistic request.
Your staff report states that the PUD meets all the current Growth
Management Plan requirements except for the native preserve areas
previously approved by the County for the project's site development
Page 129
July 26, 2005
plan and which are presently pending approval by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
To deny a PUD extension and require a PUD amendment would
have the effect of requiring the property owner to start all over again
with the Army Corps of Engineers' permitting process based on a new
land plan. Perhaps they wouldn't lose it again.
But after years of trying with the Army Corps and the County,
that would be arbitrary, capricious, and unfair. This is a property
owner who has cooperated with the County on this property in the
past.
When the County decided to go to six lanes for Livingston Road,
they asked my client for 30 feet of right-of-way along the frontage of
his property. My client agreed and he swapped the right-of-way for
construction of a deceleration lane while Livingston Road was already
under construction.
My client cooperated with the County when it had a reasonable
request, and now my client is asking the County for its cooperation on
his reasonable PUD extension request.
Good faith efforts have been made to develop this property.
Shall I call my first witness?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one question, Bruce. I
understand exactly where you're coming from, but you have to -- but
you, as the representative of the landowner, have due diligence in
regards to making sure that when this sunsets, it's your obligation, I
believe that it needs to be addressed at that point in time.
MR. ANDERSON: But my point is the code specifically allows
me to do it after, and you have to follow the code.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, exactly. But -- and an
extension, we can also deny the extension with the added portion of it
being that you have to have an amendment to the PUD, and this is __
this PUD's been active since 1999.
Page 130
July 26, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have the Land Development
Code, and it says, the PUD sunsetting prior to any time after the
planning service department director determines that a PUD has
sunsetted, then the property owner shall initiate one of the following:
Request PUD extension, request an amendment. That's our law.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't think there's any doubt that
you have the right to apply for the extension now. I don't know that
we're questioning that. The issue is whether or not we're going to
approve it. That's the issue before you.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, one Commissioner was questioning
the authority to do that.
Mr. McAnley, would you come up here, please?
MR. McANLEY: Commissioners, for the record, my name is
Bill McAnley. I was the engineer on the property. I represent the
owner as the engineer. And the only thing really that I think I can
contribute to what you need to know this morning, this afternoon, is
that we had two problems in getting the permits and the site
development plan so that we could get starting -- started with -- in the
time before the PUD sunsetted.
And the problem that actually occurred was we have an e-mail __
it was the Corps permit actually. And we have an e-mail from the
Army Corps of Engineers that states that they will not even consider
the permit until such time that Livingston Road is in, completed, and
we have a conveyance for the discharge water from the site. That
e-mail was in 1999.
At that time we thought that the completion of Livingston Road
would be in November of2003. We actually received the permit for--
we actually received the permit for the South Florida Water
Management District in 2002, so we had that permit. The only thing
we needed was the Corps.
As you know, Livingston Road was not completed until 2004; I
Page 131
July 26, 2005
think around November, 2004. So it was impossible to get these
permits prior to the sunsetting of the PUD document, which I think
sunsetted in February of 2004. So without Livingston Road fin -- and
the fact that the Corps wouldn't even consider it, and we have that in
an e-mail from Skip Bergman (phonetic) there was no way that we
could complete this by the time the PUD sunsetted.
That's probably -- one thing I could add to that, as far as the
infrastructure and the construction, the -- most of the -- well, all of the
infrastructure meets today's design criteria, or if it was redesigned,
would be designed by the same standards that we have today.
So with that, that's about all I can contribute as far as the delays
that held us up. But it was impossible for us to get the permits before
-- before November of2004, and then the Corps of Engineers would
study the proj ect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had seconded the motion to
deny just for the sake of discussion, but after seeing that our Growth
Management Plan states that they're clearly within their right to do so,
and then hearing all of the testimony that has been given, I will
withdraw my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Without a second, the motion
will die.
Is there a second from anyone else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve staffs recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion then to
approve staffs recommendation, and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I want to remind this
commission that we were in a similar circumstance not too long ago
with Immokalee Road. Remember the Army Corps of Engineers and
Page 132
July 26, 2005
the delay we went through in the process over a year, and it was of no
fault of our own that that happened. So I can understand the
petitioner's problems, and they were not of his own making. And if
. ,
It s not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Same with County Barn Road.
That's another problem that we've had over there, as well as the storm
water management problems over there, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess maybe where I may be
wrong is the fact that I felt that the petitioner, ifhe knows that -- it
should be his responsibility to follow his PUD and to make sure that if
it's getting close to sunsetting, that he needs to take the initiative and
not wait 18 months.
And my understand -- my feeling is that here we are 18 months
after the fact. This PUD was put forth in 1999, and I'm sure that
there's been a lot of changes in our Growth Management Plan and
LDCs, and at least all I was asking, that there be an amendment put to
this to address those areas of concern.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a good point, if I may
finish on what I was going to say. I'd like to hear from staff if the __
how much of a difference there is between when this PUD was
originally approved and now. We heard from the petitioner, there's
very minimal difference between the two.
MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Heidi Williams. I'm principal planner with zoning
and land development review.
There are a few things that have changed with the Growth
Management Plan since adoption of this PUD. Upon review, various
reviewers have felt that it still remains consistent with the
comprehensive plan in that the only major difference is
environmental. It does not evaluate the way they choose the preserve
area for the PUD the same way anymore, but because of the status of
the site plan and the permit that is pending, that they could support
Page 133
July 26, 2005
this petition to extend the PUD.
There is a pending potential amendment to the comprehensive
plan that was considered, and it is not adopted at this time, but it could
affect the density rating system that was used for this site. Those two
are the maj or things that have changed in the area.
Does that address your question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's staffs recommendation
is for approval?
MS. WILLIAMS: Staff recommendation is for approval of one
two-year extension.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we have a motion for
approval of staffs recommendation.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public speakers?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Halas dissenting.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Just for -- just a point of clarification. Did
the board close the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I just want to say,
you will be -- you'll be seeing us again on this same matter in about
Page 134
July 26, 2005
six months because the extension expires.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we'll disapprove it then. So come
back and six months and we'll take care of it.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what the Land
Development Code says, a maximum of two years.
MR. ANDERSON: You can -- you can grant another one to start
running when the first one expires. That was -- I know of one other
one where it's been done that way, Naples Reserve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The hearing's over. Thank you
very much.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2005-42: PUDA-2005-AR-7085: THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES DIVISION AND THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REPRESENTED BY BRUCE
TYSON, AICP, OF WILSONMILLER, INC., ARE REQUESTING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGETREE PUD DOCUMENT
AND MASTER PLAN TO CHANGE THE TRACT
DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 216 ACRES FROM
AGRICULTURE TO PUBLIC FACILITY AND COMMUNITY
USE. THE PRIMARY USE OF THE PUBLIC FACILITY
PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE TO LOCATE WATER
TREA TMENT AND WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES. THE
COMMUNITY USE PORTION WILL BE USED PRIMARILY
FOR PARK USE AND A RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER.
THE AMENDMENT WILL ALSO CORRECT AN UNINTENDED
TRACT DESIGNATION ERROR ON THE MASTER PLAN. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST
PORTION OF THE ORANGETREE PUD. ACCESS TO THE
PROPERTY WILL BE FROM IMMOKALEE ROAD USING THE
Page 135
July 26, 2005
SAME ROAD AS THAT FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
FAIRGROUNDS, IN SECTIONS 11 AND 14, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA _
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is item -- we have a two p.m. time
certain, and we're one minute from that, so that's exceptional.
This is 8E. This item to be heard at two p.m. Again, this petition
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members. .
It's PUDA-2005-AR-7085, the public utilities division and the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners represented by Bruce
Tyson, AICP, of Wilson Miller, Inc., are requesting an amendment to
the Orangetree PUD document and master plan to change the tract
designation of approximately 216 acres from agricultural to public
facility and community use.
The primary use of the public facility portion of the property will
be to locate water treatment and water reclamation facilities. The
community use portion will be used primarily for park use and a
recycling collection center. The amendment will also correct an
unintended tract designation error on the master plan.
The subject property is located in the northeast portion of the
Orangetree PUD. Access to the property will be from Immokalee
Road, using the same road as that of the Collier County fairgrounds, in
Section 11 and 14, Township 48 south, Range 27 east, Collier County,
Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all those who are going to
give testimony on this petition please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Now ex parte
disclosure by Commissioners.
Commissioner Henning, you go first this time.
Page 136
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received some kind of
propaganda on the presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've spoken with staff, and I've
received -- I've had meetings, e-mails, and calls, and I have them all
here, and they'll be placed on file.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have all correspondence
and e-mails that I have received concerning this item in my public
folder, and I've talked with staff about this issue.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. One second. Yes.
On this one here I've had meetings with the petitioner, received
e-mails, and attended public meetings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've met with the petitioner
and I've had e-mails on this and also talked with staff and went on a
field trip.
MR. TYSON: Great. Good afternoon. Thank you very much. I
am Bruce Tyson with the firm of Wilson Miller here in Naples and on
behalf of the public utilities division and department of Collier County
here to present the PUD amendment for Orangetree.
As indicated before, what we -- our goal here is to change the
land use of this portion of the Orangetree PUD so that we can
accommodate public facilities and community use on this piece of
land.
We're in between a couple of things here, so bear with us as we
go through this. But with me today are Jim DeLony from -- the
Administrator of public utilities; Tom Wides, who is the director of
fiscal operations; Roy Anderson, the engineering director; Harry
Huber, the project manager.
We have Margie Hapke, who is the -- excuse me, the public
Page 137
July 26, 2005
information coordinator; Bill Mullen, the principal project manager;
and we have Paul Mattausch, the water director; George Yilmaz, the
solid waste director and acting wastewater director; and Joe Delate is
not here today but in substituting for him we have -- hold on a second
while we get -- and Mar -- excuse me -- Marla Ramsey is here to __
take me on to the next one, please. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I hope all those people aren't going to
speak.
MR. TYSON: They're here. They're here in case you have
questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
MR. TYSON: That's all it is.
Okay. Quickly going through this, of course, Orangetree being a
sizable PUD, it's bordered on the west by Immokalee Road, on the
south by Randall Boulevard. It is surrounded completely by Estates
zoning, so it's all residential. And Oil Well Road, generally speaking,
runs through the middle of the project. And it's probably most noted
for a recent change by accommodating or having Palmetto Ridge High
School at that location.
Orangetree is a unique PUD in the County simply because it was
started in 1985 and is such a remote location. It's one of our few
PUDs that actually has agricultural zoning.
So what we have to do in order to accommodate these uses, or
course, is make this change. And at that time when Orangetree went
through in 1985, a lot of the land, of course, was an orange grove, still
is, and so there was an agricultural designation.
So we need to change that. And of, course, this amendment is, as
we indicated, for the purposes of providing in the very far -- the far
northeast corner of the Orangetree PUD, providing public facilities
and community use opportunities. So we have to change the use from
agricultural to that.
In addition, we are also going to add in a recycling facility into
Page 138
July 26, 2005
this mix, and so that's one of the things that we've added to the
community use district.
Now, from the standpoint of the main facilities, why are they
necessary? First of all, it was identified in the 2002/2003 water and
wastewater master plans for the County . We -- this -- these facilities
will be tied back into all of the County's capacity and reliability to
certainly add to that for the County, and then, finally, the County has
signed an agreement to provide for these utility services in Orangetree
by 2012.
Now, why in this location? And first of all, because of
Orangetree and that 2012 requirement, it's very important that that
occur. So one of the things that happened, and this back from the __
you may recognize this slide itself, because back in 2003 when this
land was purchased, the same graphic was used for you in evaluating
that.
And you'll notice there were six pieces of land that were
identified, but only the yellow one had the willing seller, and
consequently, is the reason why we're in this location.
So what is the plan for the land? What is -- what are we looking
to accomplish? First of all, the star on the far left of your picture
represents the access point, which will be from Immokalee Road.
Waterways of Naples, the development immediately to the south
of that, is right in that location. And then immediately to the north of
them is the Collier County fairgrounds. That's just for your
orientation.
What happens and what's encircled in the yellow stripe is the
property of 216 acres, and that is currently all an orange grove.
Now, when we did the master plan, it was very important to
consider all of the surrounding uses. And you'll notice in that that,
especially for the uses to the north where these people will not directly
benefit because they are in the Estates and consequently they won't be
part of this -- or won't be able to get the benefits of this -- these
Page 139
July 26, 2005
services -- but what we've done is you'll notice there are a series of
streets that come down.
And right now where these -- the people who have to come into
the Estates and into their homes have to access these properties from
the north, and they do that, and they come down those streets. And
when they do, what they look at today is green. And we want to
continue that. And so you'll notice where we've strategically located
the main plants and the main facilities are between those streets, so
hopefully the idea will be, as they continue to come down those
streets, it will simply have a very green and simply hold onto exactly
that same look and feel that exists today.
As you'll notice in this plan, we have the treatment -- the water
treatment plant far enough to the -- or over to the east, and it's been
placed to the east strategically so that it has minimal contact with the
public. It's done purely for security purposes, and we want to keep it
there so there's the least amount of public involvement with that as
possible.
To the west of the public facilities portion is where the
wastewater treatment facility will be placed, and in between is a
common facility so that a lot can be shared by that.
The balance of the land will be used for the purposes of a park,
which is over to the west and closest to the access, along with the .
recycling facility.
Now, specifically, let's just take a quick look at what we're trying
to accomplish here with this water treatment facility and all the other
uses. The current master plan calls for that to be 20 million gallons a
day, that facility. It will be fully integrated into the County's
distribution system, and it's going to wind up being a state-of-the-art
facility.
With the water reclamation facility, it's planned for six million
gallons a day. It, too, will be integrated into the County's collection
system, and it will be a state-of-the-art facility as well.
Page 140
July 26, 2005
We have a unique situation simply because we have a common
opportunity. Nowhere else in the County do we have these facilities
collectively on one property today.
So having the same two facilities or the two facilities on one
property will allow us to have this common area so that we can
certainly share in administrative and trading, excuse me, and certainly
have a place for the maintenance and storage of repair parts, and it
will also be at a location where we have deep inj ection wells, and so
we can share in the benefit of having those wells on the same property
as well.
And speaking of the wells, there will be some raw water wells
that will be properly placed on that property, as well as throughout the
rest of the area as the plant expands.
And the intent of these wells -- you know, has to be -- they have
to be developed so that we have a source of water for the -- for the
treatment plant itself, and some of those wells, we've already started
doing some tests for those.
And then finally, all of those wells have to wind up adapting to
and be part of a system that has to be completely approved by the
Department of Environmental Protection as well as Collier County.
We have very strict regulations as to where these wells can be placed
and how much water can be drawn from different locations before or
all through that permitting process.
Finally, the park and the recycling facility. The park itself, very
little is known right now about what it's going to be. There is going to
be some additional master planning and thought given to that, so
consequently that will be coming online in two to three, or three to
five years before anything happens with the park itself.
With the household recycling center that's in the far west of this
project, it will be developed to accommodate and pick up, you know,
the typical things that you can drop off with the bottles, cans, paper
and cardboard, and it will have a lot of household -- not the chem __
Page 141
July 26, 2005
not the commercial, but it will strictly be household hazardous waste,
the petro-based oils, fluids, paint, batteries, fluorescent tubes,
computers.
All of those things can be put into these recycling centers, not for
trash or garbage. And it will be very contained and enclosed and
secured. George Yilmaz, our solid waste director, has the best
explanation for this as simply being an extension of your garage.
So if you think of it from that standpoint, that's exactly what will
be used, or that's what the use will be here. Clean out your garage and
put those things here where there's no problem with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, back up. Now let's make
sure that everybody understands. This is a transfer point for those
things.
MR. TYSON: For recycling only.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. They're not disposed of at
this particular location. This is a collection point --
MR. TYSON: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for those -- and they're taken
elsewhere for proper disposal?
MR. TYSON: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't want the public to think that
you're just going to drop all these hazardous materials in that location
and keep them there, okay?
MR. TYSON: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
MR. TYSON: Now, when you look at these facilities, of course,
we have to meet all of the tests for noise, glare, in terms of odor, as
well as the visual side of it.
Everybody's been thinking very carefully about the way in which
these facilities will look, how they will be placed on the property. So
consequently, from the standpoint of noise, obviously we have to meet
the County Ordinances when it comes to noise. But in terms of the
Page 142
July 26, 2005
best solution for that is certainly to mitigate at the source for all of
those noises, and then you can procure special equipment that really
helps from the standpoint of reducing the noise.
The sources of that noise can be placed as far away from the
receptors as possible. And it's very important to use acoustic
deadening material when it's required. And a landscape buffer in a lot
of places helps, just to indicate quickly what some of the technology is
that exists out there.
This is a virtual enhancement of noise contouring that can be
done where receptors and microphones can be placed in different
areas. You can determine exactly what the level of noise is, and then
on the right hand is an exact same location, but by using deadening
materials, the barriers, the attenuators and equipment jackets, you can
see the effect of what happens to the noise.
And it can be tested and you can move that into different places
and determine in advance. So this is one of the technologies that will
be employed as we look forward to this.
As it relates to glare, from the standpoint of the light, it's
important to shield those lights and direct them away from the
properties. That will be very important to do that. Reducing the
mounting heights helps, for sure, providing a landscape buffer at the
perimeter certainly as well helps tremendously from the standpoint of
eliminating glare.
Odor is a problem that you can imagine would occur typically at
a facility, and any of these facilities. And consequently, the real trick
is to capture it at the source.
What's very important is to use state-of-the-art technologies,
enclose -- you can enclose portions of the facilities, and you can use
odor control devices.
What you see here is a picture of the north treatment -- waste
treatment plant, and this is a bio- filter which contains bacteria that
literally eat the odor out of the area, and it's replenished back into the
Page 143
July 26, 2005
area without, you know, being significantly changed or modified to
the point of where the odor has been virtually eliminated from the air.
So it's techniques like that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that black thing is the --
MR. TYSON: That's the black thing. That is the black thing.
That's the big, black canister right there, but it's a big odor eater, and it
does a very, very effective job. It's the technologies like this that are
taking place in today's world that make this a very exciting and
dynamic business to be in.
Finally, as it relates to sight, as you can imagine, is also a big
issue. We have spent a lot of time looking at the aesthetics of how
these plants will be placed. Obviously when you place a plant in the
middle of -- or a facility in the middle of an orange grove, it's a
change, and it's important to, as best possible, integrate these into the
community .
As it relates to the architectural side of it, we will look at that
from a standpoint of its compatibility and continuity. That will be
very important. We have a maximum height for the buildings of up to
60 feet, and then we have a -- calling for landscape buffering.
The slide that you see in front of you is a study that we had
created that shows what would happen if you planted trees at a buffer
right now at 12 feet, and in four years if they mature at four feet a
year, and at eight years on the bottom what happens when they mature
to the point of where they are 20 feet tall.
And as you can see, the sight line changes to the point of where
you're on the bottom slide and you really completely cover anything
that would be 60 feet tall.
The other thing that happens is that you recognize that, we've
talked about it, that you're in an orange grove, and we're going to do
everything we can logically within reason to try to save some of those
trees, especially if we can find an operator who can come in and
manage the grove.
Page 144
July 26, 2005
It's going to be significantly less, but if we can, we'll work it so
that that additional buffer stays in place, and I think that will be
important also to keep the continuity of the neighborhood and what's
-- how we've gone on so far.
The buildings themselves need to be set back, according to the
PUD, 100 feet. Now, that's twice as much as what an industrial
facility in the County currently requires.
The 50 -- there's a 50-foot separation between buildings as a
setback from a residential property according to the LDC.
What we're doing here is saying that we will set these buildings
back 100 feet. What you're looking at here is a building that's set back
300 feet. And what we're -- we will do in this initial stage of
development, and that's through this 20 million gallons a day for the
water treatment plant, six million gallons a day for the wastewater
treatment plant, is be able to put these facilities so that they are 300
feet back from the property line, so that way they'll be as far back as
possible.
And as -- and I think that's the important aspect of this. If
anything has to expand beyond that, the buffer's going to continue to
grow, the sight lines will continue to get reduced, and it will just be
that much more of a win-win in the long run for the community.
We had asked -- we were asked a question when we were --
matter of fact, you were at the town hall meeting in early April out at
the Palmetto Ridge High School, and at the end of that meeting when
we were there after our presentation, a question came up about
property values.
Now, we're not real estate appraisers, and we're not, you know,
realtors in any way, shape, or form. What we tried to do was answer
that question. And what we did with the real property division here in
the County is analyze over 165 properties that were within one and a
half mile of the South Collier Water Reclamation Facility, and we
compared those to 162 property sales that were between a half mile
Page 145
July 26, 2005
and one mile from the same facility. What we were trying to do is
find out, was there any significant difference in the sale of those two.
And then we did the same thing up at the north water treatment
plant. Now, the roadway -- let's see. Good. This is Collier Boulevard
that comes down, which is the north/south road and we have--
MR. MUDD: Vanderbilt.
MR. TYSON: -- Vanderbilt Beach Road that runs along where
the plant is. And we did the same thing here. We took and figured
out what was a half a mile from that plant, and then we compared that
in this case to over 240 property sales between one half mile and one
mile.
And what you'll see is, if you look at this chart that's draws this to
a conclusion is we have the cost per square foot running up and down,
that's the left-hand margin, and, of course, the year that these were
done on the right-hand margin, on the bottom of the chart, excuse me.
The dark blue line represents the south plant one half mile away.
The turquoise line is the south plant between one half mile and one
mile. And you'll notice that they basically run in sync, meaning that
there is no sub -- we could find no conclusive evidence that
determined that there was any difference between those facilities that
were -- those homes that were closer to the treatment facility versus
those that were within a half mile or one mile of the facility. They run
in parallel like that, meaning that they've always had that distinction,
and we just could not come up with that conclusion.
The same thing happened with the north plant. In essence, the
yellow line was where they were a little further away, but the reason
there is that we just didn't have the statistic formula and the history
because there were not that many properties that had sold in the recent
times, which is the red line, and that was mainly because of Vanderbilt
Country Club, which is the sales that you see in the red line.
So consequently, again, we just didn't find anything conclusive
that indicated that values would be reduced one way or another. And,
Page 146
July 26, 2005
of course, the other side of that is, we had nothing to compare it to in
Collier County with new facilities. We couldn't do that because we
don't have a situation like Orangetree that ever happened in Collier
County, and we wanted to do this in Collier County because it was
meaningless if we did it in some other County.
Now, what happens next? Of course, we have our meeting with
you here today . We will be establishing a community advisory panel
this summer, assuming that this is approved. We'll start construction
documents in the summer as well.
The first thing that will happen from a construction standpoint is
that landscape buffer, and that will happen in the winter and spring of
next year, and then the construction of the facility will start in August
of 2006, about a year from now.
One of the things that's very important for us and we recognize is
that it was really critical to involve the community. How do you keep
the community involved in a project such as this?
And what will be established is a community advisory panel.
And we now have seven members who have signed up for this. We
are looking for 10 to 12 in the long run. And those people will
constantly be asked to give us input from the community, go way in -_
you know, so that we have that conversation that goes between the
community and the design team so that we can wind up getting as best
and good a project and be responsive to the community's needs as
well.
And also there is a website that we will change periodically, and
it will keep people updated on meetings, what's going on with the
project, pictures, showing levels of development, we can get
conceptual plans on there so people can react to that as well.
Thank you very much, and I'll be happy to entertain any
questions that I can.
By the way, the presentation that you just saw, since you -- I
don't think most of you were there, this is virtually identical to what
Page 147
July 26, 2005
we did at the neighborhood information meeting and what we did with
the Planning Commission.
So I wanted to make sure that everybody saw the exact same
thing. And other than the changes of dates, which is at the end --
because we had other dates in there, I wanted to make sure that you
saw that. So it's a little bit of an abbreviated presentation. But
nonetheless, that's very close.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I just want to compliment
you and your team for the wonderful job they did of reaching out to
the neighbors.
I've seen many efforts like this in the past with developers
coming to us, other proj ects, roads going in. I've never seen one that
had quite the effort put into it and the results that came back have all
been positive.
It's -- anyone that had any concerns, they were worked with --
they were worked with a great amount of time spent on it, questions
were answered. This is an ongoing effort to keep in touch with the
neighbors. I think it's a new effort, new idea, and I think we should
try to continue it in other ways.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion there somewhere?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, there is. I'm getting to it.
You know how it is. Us politicians like to build up to it, but I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Another hour or so and we'll get there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do realize that we have
speakers to go, but it will be my pleasure to make a motion for
approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion for approval by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
And Commissioner Henning wants to speak, or you want to wait
till after the two public speakers?
Page 148
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Knowing that this is going
to add some employment, are you willing to contribute monies to the
Immokalee Affordable Housing fund?
MR. TYSON: Who is the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was a rhetorical question. You can
disregard that one. The point has been made.
Okay. Let's call the two --
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have two speakers. Mr.
Jeffrey Heverling, and he'll be followed by Amy Taylor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. HEVERLING: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
I volunteered to be a member of the citizens advisory panel when
it starts. I live in Waterways of Naples, but I'm not here representing
the homeowners' association today. I'm here as a concerned citizen,
someone who's worked in the utility field as a financial expert, and
I've been around the block a lot with water and sewer treatment
facilities.
There's a compelling need out in the Orangetree area to address
the safety and reliability of water quality and the ability to have
ongoing service. This move that you consider today to approve this
rezoning, I think, is a fundamental step to handle that situation.
My experience has been in the past that small developments with
small developer water companies, they don't have the longevity to be
able to handle quality of service, and they don't have the efficiencies
either. So what you have before you is the ability to become very
efficient, having water and sewer together. I think it's definitely in the
public interest.
I certainly recognize that all of us suffer from the NIMBY
disease, and so there are some challenges with locating the plant. I
think the staff of the County has done an incredible job working with
the residents in my area to make this more appealing. I certainly
Page 149
July 26, 2005
would urge you to approve this.
I would also urge you to continue to direct this staff to work as
hard as they have with the residents to make this a win-win for
everyone. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Amy Taylor.
MS. TAYLOR: Good afternoon. I'm Amy Taylor with the
Collier County school district. I want to welcome the Collier County
public utilities and parks as our new neighbors. We have three
schools, as you know, there.
As you may recollect, about -- about this time two years ago, we
came in for a PUD amendment to the Orangetree community for -- to
allow for the high school to locate there.
And the zoning designation was changed so that a high school
could locate there successfully. In the subsequent change, however --
and that's why I'm here today, and I've been working closely with your
staff and also had conversations with WilsonMiller -- in the
subsequent change we're trying to -- where probably the Orange
Blossom PUD, there have been a scrivener's error that was made that
changed actually the land in which the Palmetto Ridge High School
was on to a use that would have made the high school nonconforming.
So we're here today to make sure -- to ensure that that correction
is made, and we appreciate your support on that so that the high
school is back to where it was when we went through that arduous
amendment process two years ago.
So thank you very much. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to
answer them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's all that about? And how is that
going to be changed if we recommend approval for this PUD?
MS. WILLIAMS: For the record, Heidi Williams with zoning
and land development review. This was brought to our attention
following the application by the utilities department, and as Ms.
Page 150
July 26, 2005
Taylor shared with you, an unintended change was made to the master
plan which showed the parcel that is -- that has the Palmetto Ridge
High School, it showed is as an SP on the map, and that would be a
school park use.
And in the PUD document, that designation only allows
elementary and middle schools, which would create nonconformity for
the high school. It was never intended to be changed to an SP
designation, and so we've simply altered the master plan back to show
the intended agricultural designation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And does that require our approval?
And is that approval included in the motion to approve the PUD?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. That would be included in my
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we're taking care of both of these
issues all at once?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right. Okay. Thank you, Amy.
Any other speakers?
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I'll close the public hearing.
We have a motion on the floor for approval.
Commissioner Fiala, did you want to make a comment?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a quick one to say, again, how
much I appreciate, and I think all the people around Orangetree there,
appreciate the communication, the constant communication right from
the start, the information and -- the sharing, information sharing, and I
think that that's why this is such an easy decision for us is because you
have been so open with the public, and I just want to thank you for
that. And with that, I call the question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't call the question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a second on that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, yeah, but I call the question.
Page 151
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, all right. Well, I'd like to call it,
please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously, and we are
taking a break now. We'll be back here in 10 minutes.
MR. TYSON: Thank you very much.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item # 1 OC
A CONTRACT TO MCDONALD TRANSIT TO PROVIDE
CONSOLIDATED MANAGEMENT FOR THE COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT AND THE PARATRANSIT SYSTEM AS IDENTIFIED
IN RFP #05-3845 AND TO ALLOW STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A
CONTRACT - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item, Commissioners, is Item 10(C) on
your agenda. It's a recommendation to award a contract to McDonald
Transit to provide consolidated management for the Collier area
transit and para-transit system, as identified in RFP No. 05-3845, and
to allow staff to negotiate a contract.
And Ms. Diane Flagg, your Alternative Transportation Director,
will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
Page 152
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve, second by
Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion?
Just for the benefit of the public, this is a contractor who's been
with us for a long time. It has been procured by competitive
procurement in accordance with regulations. We know their
capabilities, we know the price, we think it's a good deal and we're
going to proceed with it.
MS. FLAGG: Correct. The only thing different is that this is a
single gatekeeper, so this contractor will also be taking over
management of the para-transit system in addition to the transit
system.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we will eliminate the
problem that we had in the para-transit --
MS. FLAGG: We will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- system.
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Problem. Okay. Very well.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just real quickly, one of the
things I was concerned with is we did have a couple other operators a
while back who were not a credit to the system. I just wanted to make
sure that this one wasn't one of them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is not one of them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it is not -- plus, of course,
they're replacing the previous, the last one. So I would like to make a
motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We already have a motion on the floor--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And seconded. Would you like to call
the question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll call the question.
Page 153
July 26, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that sounds good.
All right. Are there any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're just so lucky that I'm here
each day so that you can have somebody to pick on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I really feel fortunate, yes.
Item #10D
CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER FORCE MAIN TO CHANGE
SERVICE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
CENTER FROM THE CITY OF NAPLES TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT, PROJECT NUMBER 52005 WITH
AN ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT OF $1,650,000.00-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is No. 10(D). It's a
recommendation to approve construction of a sewer force main to
change service for the Collier County government center from the
City of Naples to Collier County sewer district, project No. 52005,
with an estimated fiscal impact of $1,650,000.
And Mr. Ron Hovell, Senior Project Manager for Facilities, will
Page 154
July 26, 2005
present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Ron, go ahead.
MR. HOVELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Ron Hovell,
Principal Project Manager in the Facilities Management Department.
As you saw in your package, this complex is currently serviced
for both water and sewer from the City of Naples, and we believe it's
been that way since this complex came into being in the late 1960's.
Over 10 years ago, some of our engineers started to recommend
that we switch over to the County system because we're about a mile
and a half by road and therefore underground utilities to the nearest
point of connection to the main City of Naples system. And there's a
number of lines out there that potentially conflict with both
stormwater conflicts and other County lines.
We need to upsize from our current six-inch line, the -- actually,
a number of years ago the -- from the lift station here on the complex
over toward the County system, a 10- inch line was run, except for
about the last 100 feet, in anticipation of getting the final political and
other permitted approvals.
And we're now asking for the authority to more forward with that
physical connection, even though we have not finalized an agreement
amendment with the city staff to document exactly how and when
we're going to do this.
We have been in discussions with them, though. We have traded
versions of an agreement. They are aware of our imminent opening of
the Naples jail, which will put us well over capacity of the six-inch
line. And certainly they understand our need to physically make the
connection to the County system here in the next month or so. And
that's all we're asking for you to approve today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this is not going to delay the
opening of the jail at all?
Page 155
July 26, 2005
MR. HOVELL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item # 1 OE
A DEVELOPERS CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (IN THE
AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $845,000) WITH
TARGET/KITE REALTY GROUP TO FINALIZE THE EXACT
SIZE, LOCATION AND DESIGN DETAILS FOR THE 1-75 ON
RAMP AT IMMOKALEE ROAD - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, next item is 10(E). It's a
recommendation to approve a developer's contribution agreement in
the amount of approximately $845,000 with Target/Kite Realty Group
to finalize the exact size location and design details for the 1-75
on-ramp at Immokalee Road.
And Mr. Norman Feder, your Administrator for Transportation
Page 156
July 26, 2005
Services, will present.
MR. FEDER: For the public record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Services. I will be very brief.
We came to you some time ago with a developer contribution
agreement that set approximately two acres, based on a development
of a loop for 1-75 and Immokalee that was fairly consistent in size and
geometry with other loop roads like on Bonita Beach Road that the
state had approved previously along the federal highway.
Given the advent of 10-laning, the improvements to the interstate
and the need of modification as to where we would come in on the
bridge and, therefore, the overpass itself, Federal Highway and
therefore DOT has said that they couldn't work with less than four
acres at that site.
The developers have agreed to go beyond the 1.87 originally
proposed to two and a quarter acres, and then the balance of about one
and three-quarters acres we are going to end up giving them impact
fee credits against their just over approximately about three-and-a-half
million of impact fees for about $800,000, as you see in your
executive summary.
That is actually based on the cost of the land at their purchase
price, plus the developers are moving items on their project to
accommodate.
So we maintain this is a very, very important feature for the
operations along Immokalee Road, not only for this development but
overall operations. So we're asking for your approval of this
amendment based on the previously approved developer contribution
agreement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it is consistent with the previously
approved agreement?
MR. FEDER: Yes, it is, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the state's requirement --
Page 157
July 26, 2005
or the fed's requirement for a broader, can we utilize that land in the
center of the --
MR. FEDER: We already planned on utilizing it for ours and for
some of the development's stormwater retention and landscaping
efforts. We're going to continue to do that, even though it's a little bit
larger area, it will help address the stormwater needs of both us and
the development.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, that was worked out
previously?
MR. FEDER: Yes, it was. It was consistent with what we were
doing previously. Basically all the terms are consistent, other than
what I noted in the increased land and the impact fee credits for a
portion of that increased land area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's actually maximizing
the land that we need to buy just to use it for stormwater storage for
everybody.
MR. FEDER: Well, it's allowing us to put in the type of loop
that's required, the radius, and therefore the speed.
It also minimizes, it doesn't -- makes it so that we don't impact
the structure itself, so we don't have that as a cost. And it's what
Federal Highway will approve, since they have control over access
and connections to the interstate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Halas, do you have anything else to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I believe the reason that we
need the additional land is because under the present standards, the
FDOT wants to make sure that we don't have a decreasing radius
which would cause a problem entering onto the expressway.
Page 158
July 26, 2005
MR. FEDER: Actually, it's Federal Highway, but as well DOT.
The Federal Highway ultimately is the one that has raised that
question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other concern that I have, and I
think that has been addressed in our meetings, and that is the property
that's going to be sold to us is going to be sold to us at a fair market
value here of about $845,000; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: That's correct. And actually it represents --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's all of the land--
MR. FEDER: It represents actually the cost of the land to them.
So we're paying the same price that they purchased.
The only other thing I need to note to you, there may be a minor
PUD amendment as they go to shift some of the buildings and parking
to accommodate this expanded, and that will be coming to you, and
that's been discussed in great detail with Community Development
/Environmental Services staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas. Any
further discussions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 159
July 26, 2005
Item #10F
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.2, EXHIBIT E, FOR A
GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE (GMP) OF $20,646,800
UNDER CONTRACT NO. 04-3576, CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER AT RISK SERVICES FOR COURTHOUSE ANNEX
AND PARKING GARAGE, WITH KRAFT CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
COURTHOUSE ANNEX FLOORS 1-4, PHASE I, PROJECT
NUMBER 52533 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is No. 10(F). It's a
recommendation to approve contract amendment No.2, Exhibit E, for
a guaranteed maximum price of $20,646,800 under contract No.
04-3576, construction manager at Risk Services for the courthouse
annex and parking garage, with Kraft Construction Company, Inc., for
the construction of the courthouse annex, floors one through four,
phase one. Project No. 52533.
And Mr. Skip Camp, your director of facilities management, will
present.
MR. CAMP: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Skip Camp, facilities management.
You've seen this item over the last 18 months in the design phase.
N ow we're ready to construct it.
The site is -- you're familiar between this building and the current
courthouse.
It's a construction management at Risk. The floors one through
three will be finished, the fourth floor will be shelled. We'll come
back to you later on for the second phase, which is being designed
now.
It's 18 months of construction. It's $20,646,800 is the GMP, the
guaranteed maximum amount with Kraft Construction.
Page 160
July 26, 2005
The -- I want to point out one thing: Follow-up actions will
encompass processing the amendment obviously after today. We are
designing floors five through seven, which is phase two. You've
already approved that. We will come back to you with a GMP for
phase two, the upper floor shell, which -- after that, that will happen
after the subcontractor's costs come in to the general contractor.
We will be expanding the chiller plant.
I did want to bring to your attention that it's 7.5 percent over
budget, which sounds like a lot. It's not, if you know what's been
going on over this last year. We will come back to you in the next
budget cycle -- not this one but the next one -- to secure those funds.
Most of that is of course for -- because of the cost of construction as it
relates to both concrete and steel.
It's about $270 a square foot for the construction. And we ask for
your approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was there any consideration to
just go out for a straight bid, take the design?
MR. CAMP: We considered that about -- almost two years ago
and decided that we've had such good luck with construction
management at Risk, along with the school board, that on a big project
like this where you have a lot of eggs in one basket, this was the most
economical, and also with the least amount of risk to the taxpayers, to
the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Most economical. How would
you -- I mean, I just don't understand. If you don't send it out to where
more than one firm bids on it, how would you know you're getting a
good price?
MR. CAMP: Well, there's two things. It's the old saying, you
can pay now or pay later. Often in straight contracts that are low bid,
you get what you pay for through change orders throughout the
project. We have the least amount of change orders on this kind of
Page 161
July 26, 2005
thing.
Also, there's a couple of important things. First of all, every
subcontractor is bid. For the electrical, it's all bid. You get three bids
for each one of them. We negotiated with the general contractor but
everything under the general contractor is bid out, all the electrical, all
the HV AC, all those disciplines are bid out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And who bids that?
MR. CAMP: The general contractor. And we have to -- we
inspect everything to make sure that they're all legitimate, both the
board's employees and the Clerk of the courts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the projects that I've seen
from this company is the ones that -- the subcontractors that are
getting the bids are the general contractor's subcontractors. I mean, he
owns the companies. Aerial and --
MR. CAMP: I know that he owns -- I believe -- and I may be
speaking out of turn, but I know he's -- I believe he owns a painting
contractor, is the only one that I know for sure. But he has to get three
quotes on all of them. They're inspected by your staff and the Clerk's
staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To me, I just think we get bids
that we know we'd be getting the best price. Change orders -- I mean,
I can't understand, you have a design and you say bid on this, and if
you get the bid, you build it. So why do you have change orders on a
vertical construction as long as you stick to the design?
MR. CAMP : Well, things do change, and things are not very
dimensional when they're being designed, and you have conflicts.
Once it's being erected, you do have conflicts.
You also have sometimes changes in staff. Maybe the occupant --
in this particular case it could be the Clerk, has changes in staff. As the
occupancy of the building go up, they may see that okay, this looked
fine when it was on paper, but now that it's dimensional it looks
different. But particularly the architect can't think of everything. If
Page 162
July 26, 2005
you think of all the disciplines that are included in a design, they can't
think of everything. But the~e are a nurriber of legitimate reasons for
having change orders.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With the added seven and a half
percent, will that be -- end up to be a fixed cost so that we fix the cost
of the building of this building?
MR. CAMP: Absolutely. They have a GMP, a guaranteed
maXImum.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. I think that's very
important.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, the important aspect of this is that
although that's a maximum, the fact that you are bidding out all of the
subcontract work means there is a potential to have it come in less
than this amount.
MR. CAMP: That's absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And so that is the safeguard here
so that if there are unanticipated circumstances, we're not going to get
nickeled and dimed --
MR. CAMP: They have to eat it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by change orders.
MR. CAMP: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Very well. Is there a motion
concerning this, or do you have any other questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further discussion?
Page 163
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I -- you know, I think -- I
still believe that going out tq the world and saying hey, give me a
price on this, here's your plans, and if we change it during the way
then shame on us that we didn't know what we wanted before building
it.
And, you know, if the architecture design person screws up,
shame on us for not holding his feet to the fire. I just think a straight
bid is the better way than a guaranteed maximum price.
MR. CAMP: We also -- Commissioner, so you know, we are
trying both methods, because there's truth in both. The Vanderbilt
parking deck is a straight bid. Unfortunately, we had a hard time __
we're having a hard time even getting people to bid on our work.
There's so much work out there that we're calling people to make sure
that they know that the bid is coming up, just to get them. It's -- quite
honestly, it's not very competitive out there for us, especially when it
comes to low bid.
A lot of the top firms don't like to do low bid. So we are trying
both. And, quite honestly, you don't always know where the truth is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well the -- two points I'd like to make.
One that is you have used this contracting technique in the past.
MR. CAMP: With great success.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With great success. It is a well-known,
widely used contracting method.
The other thing is that when you go out for a single bid for the
entire contract and you have competitive bids for the entire contract,
you do not always get to take a look at all of the subcontractors under
that contract. You're awarding it based on the total price there.
MR. CAMP: Absolutely. You typically don't get to look.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But in this case you get to examine each
of the subcontractors' bids to make sure you are getti~g the best price
for each discipline involved in the construction of the project.
MR. CAMP: Absolutely.
Page 164
.,..",..~,_.._._,_...~.,..._....,-, iii ."'"""".'___"_ -,_...,-_.._---
July 26, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that is an advantage that you don't
have if you go out just for a .total price" for the lowest bid.
MR. CAMP: You select the contractor initially on quality, and
you want a fair negotiated price. And then you go ahead and you bid
out all the subs. We think it's a good way to do businesses.
Are there others? Probably. But this has worked well for the
County so far.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, Commissioner Halas and then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I think everybody at one
time or another has been involved in building a home. And a lot of
times once you see a print and you start building, you realize that
maybe you need to make some changes. So I can understand why we
have change orders, because the -- whoever the occupant is going to
be in regards to a building, any kind of a vertical structure, it may at
first seem like it's going to fit their needs, but as they get close to
putting this up then they realize there's got to be sometimes some
Inajor changes. And that's -- I think we run into a problem there.
MR. CAMP: I just -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I think that that stuff that __
hun1an nature says hey, wait a minute, we need to change this because
it doesn't work, it's not going to be efficient for us in a work
environment, so we need to change it now. And at first it looks like
it's a large cost, but probably overall we end up saving money when
you look at the efficiencies that it can generate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MS. FILSON: We have a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And a second. Okay. Any further
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
Page 165
July 26, 2005
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to another time certain,
8(C), at 3:00 p.m.
Item #8C
PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5998: COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REPRESENTED BY COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(CFPUD) FOR A PROJECT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE
BEMBRIDGE PUD, TO CHANGE THE NAME TO THE
BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICE COMPLEX PUD,
AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PUD DOCUMENT
AND MASTER PLAN TO SHOW A CHANGE IN USE FROM
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND A CHURCH OR A
NURSING HOME, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF
COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO INCLUDE AN EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS CENTER, OTHER
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES, AND AN EXISTING
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF 39.82:1:
ACRES AND IS LOCATED ON SANTABARBARA
BOULEVARD, NORTH OF DAVIS BOULEVARD, IN SECTION
4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA: MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO
Page 166
July 26, 2005
THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 BCC MEETING APPROVED -;
MOTION TO GIVE COUNTY MANAGER MUDD THE
AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH MR. STOCK REGARDING
LOCATION IN LEL Y - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: This item to be heard at 3 :00 p.m. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members.
It's PUDZA-2004-AR-5998, Collier County Board of County
Commissioners, represented by Coastal Engineering Consultants,
requesting a rezone from planned unit development to community
facilities planned unit development for a project previously known as
the Bembridge PUD to change the name of the Bembridge -- to the
Bembridge Emergency Services Complex PUD. Amend the previous
approved PUD document and master plan to show a change in use
from residential development and a church or a nursing home, to allow
development of community facilities to include an Emergency
Management operations center, other government facilities, and an
existing elementary school.
The project consists of 39.82 plus or minus acres and is located
on the Santa Barbara Boulevard, north of Davis Boulevard, in Section
4, Township 5 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
You -- swear some folks in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Will everyone who is going to give
testimony in this petition please stand to be sworn in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And ex-parte disclosure by
Commissioners, starting with Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I've had numerous e-mails,
meetings, correspondence, and talked at great length with staff in
regards to this upcoming issue here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 167
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have had meetings,
correspondence, e-mails, telephone calls. And of course this was
reviewed once before by the Collier County Commission.
And Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, same with me: Meetings,
correspondence, e-mails, phone calls, gone to see the site. I talked
with staff, and we also had the meeting. And I have my things on file.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had telephone calls, meetings,
some correspondence on this item, and also heard this at the previous
board meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, I think I should make an
announcement to all those who have come here to hear this
presentation.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, why don't you let me do that,
okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Go ahead.
MR. MUDD: And try to keep you separate from the petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: What I had done prior to this was talk to the
Chairman. Our intent today was to give the board a presentation about
the alternatives on the site, a four-story site and three-story site. The
four-story site you might have already seen. The three-story site you
haven't seen.
And then they'll also discuss another option at a different site.
We have received notice from Mr. Stock that he would be willing
to work with us to co-locate the emergency services complex and the
regional library on Lely Cultural Parkway.
I do not have an agreement lined up yet in a legal document. I do
have a letter that we received yesterday, July 25th, to Mr. Ochs from
Mr. Stock.
Page 168
July 26, 2005
I would like to have that document in hand with that agreement,
and so what I'm going to ask the board today is I'd like to present
those options to the board so that you know what we're talking about,
and then I would ask the board to continue this item until the 13th of
September, the next board meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that essentially means that there will
be a brief explanation of the concepts the staff is considering right
now so that you're properly informed. But there will be no hearing, no
motion, no approval at this point in time at all, that it will be
postponed until the September --
MR. MUDD: The board has to decide to continue the item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, if the board decides to do that, we'll
continue it.
Okay, Len.
MS. PRICE: Good afternoon, for the record, Len Price,
Administrative Services Administrator.
The first part of this presentation is going to be basically what
you've seen before, just to bring you back up to speed as to where we
are.
After that, I will present to you two concepts. And we don't have
a great deal of information on them, just concepts to consider as
alternatives, if you don't feel that the four-story building on the
Bembridge site is going to be something that you can approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if you could concentrate mostly on
the concepts that are different from what we've already heard, that
would be helpful, Len.
MS. PRICE: I'm going to try and get through this as quickly as
possible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. PRICE: Just as a reminder, this is the project as you saw it.
The EOC would be sitting right in front of the school with a pond
between them, sitting on Santa Barbara Boulevard.
Page 169
July 26, 2005
Recently the actions that have taken place was the board denying
the rezoning. Since that time, we asked you to reconsider the item.
You agreed to do that. And we've brought this back and we are
prepared to discuss the alternatives with you.
As a reminder, these are the administrative functions that we
hope to put at this building, you know, irrespective of its location.
These are the administrative functions that we're looking at, the 911
center, a Sheriffs substation, Emergency Management administration,
EMS administration, classroom and training, information technology
backup, an information studio and the emergency operations center.
The building itself is 129,543 square feet, broken up in this
manner. The usable amount is about 86,900 square feet. Beyond that,
you've got elevators, stairwells, et cetera. So you can see, the majority
of the building is actually consisting of mechanical rooms and what
have you. But you had asked us last time to break it down and this is
the breakdown.
The Sheriff is looking at 14,000 square feet. The EMS is looking
at 9,000 square feet, almost 10,000 square feet. And Emergency
Management at 18,000 square feet. That's the breakdown of the
building itself.
The concerns that have been raised already have dealt with the
land search and site collection, the line of sight drawings, elevations,
deviations, et cetera. I'm not going to delineate them all. I think
everybody knows where we stand as far as that goes.
As a reminder, at this point we would only be asking for three
deviations: A rear landscape buffer, the glazing and an additional
school sign that would make it conform with all the other schools in
the area.
Again, this is what you would be looking at, keeping in mind that
even without the emergency services facility you would be looking at
all the remaining pieces, regardless.
This is the four-story building that we had redesigned from the
Page 170
July 26, 2005
original submittal. You've got the elevations from the road. The top of
the building goes up 92 feet from the crown of the road, 89 feet from
the actual ground that it would be sitting on. The zoned height would
be 72 feet. It would also include a 178- foot tower that's 178 feet from
the crown of the road. That's standing in the center of the road, from
standing right next to the building, it would be up 175 feet. So there's
about a three-foot difference between the crown of the road and where
the building actually sits.
We've got two line of sight drawings for you, one from right
across the street. This is what would be seen with the four-story
building. I want you to try and envision that it would be one story less
if we went with a three-story modified building. So it would come
down, you know, another few feet you'd been able to see the top story
above the trees as it sits right now.
From further north, this is what you would see on a four-story
building. A three-story building would barely be visible, with the
exception of the tower.
This is the three-story redesigned concept that we have in mind.
What we have essentially done is squished everything down. We've
taken out the underground parking, moved the mechanical parts inside
within the building to give you the same building without the first
story .
By doing that, we were able to bring the zoning height down to
54 feet. The peak from the road would go down to 74. The tower, of
course, would still be the same height. More tower would be seen on
a three-story building than the four-story building.
By doing that, we would lose 5,000 square feet of storage, 5,000
square feet of future growth and 33 parking spaces that would have
been directly under the building. We also would have to have the first
floor completely flood-proofed, because it would be in essence a
functional floor.
Just as an aside, the Daily News put out a survey to get input
Page 171
July 26, 2005
about this building. I grant you, this is not a scientific study, but it
does indicate that there is support out there for that building. And that
will be enough said about that.
Our other option is on Lely Cultural Parkway, right off of Collier
Boulevard. This is the site that Mr. Mudd alluded to just a moment
ago. You can see where it would sit from there. We do not actually
have specific drawings. What we would want to do is put the
four-story building there.
We did do a --
MR. MUDD: Let me interject for just one second, because we're
changing sites real quick, and we're changing dimensions.
What you saw previous on a four-story and a three-story site is a
five-acre site. And that's what we're basically dealing with at this
particular juncture.
N ow we're transitioning to a 20-acre site. So I just want to make
sure that you understand that dimension.
I'm sorry, Len.
MS. PRICE: That's okay.
We did a rough site plan. This is not a plan that was put together
by an architect, this was just trying to make sure that the two functions
would be able to sit on this site. In the front what you've got is the
library and towards the back of it you see that we've added on some
potential growth to the library, you know, assuming that, you know,
all things might change.
We've also designed in the back the EOC, and again, we've
expanded it a little bit for additional growth, but trying to maximize
the space on here. As you can see, the two sites would fit on there
quite nicely.
We've got two line of sight drawings for you. The first one from
the -- that I'll show you is from the bottom. The second one is from
directly across the street. I believe we're looking at about 500 feet
from each of them. Is that correct? I'm sorry, over 1,000 feet is what
Page 1 72
July 26, 2005
you would see, since this site is so much bigger.
And as you can tell, what you would see, depending on whether
you're looking quite this way or that way would be the tippy top of
that tower. So the rest of it would not be visible between the trees, the
other building. From directly across the street you'd be able to see just
a little bit more of that tower.
At this point, my presentation is going to conclude because we've
decided to continue the item. I just wanted to point out that the
difference between a three-story building put onto the Bembridge site
is not a significant cost difference. It is a significant time difference.
If we do get the approvals to move forward with this Lely site, it
would probably put us behind where we had hoped by about eight to
nine months, perhaps a little bit longer. We've got the building already
designed, but of course there would have to be some new site
development plans and we would have to meet with the residents,
speak with them out there, get all of the approvals, and we're going to
have to look further at the land use to make sure that we follow all of
those processes as well.
At this point I'll ask --
MR. MUDD: Len, can you back up to the Lely site where you
had the trees and stuff that were sitting there.
MS. PRICE: This one?
MR. MUDD: No, keep going. Keep going. Stop.
Commissioners, as you take a look at this particular site -- if you
could just bear with me, okay? And I now need to get my specs on, so
I'm showing my age. And I'll try to be as steady as I can up here with
this light.
That area right there is the school site off to the right-hand side.
This area in the -- and I'll call it in the back of the site to the north of
the site is a conservation area that will not be developed. Our
neighbor over here is a school bus barn facility that sits right in here,
and our neighbor to the left is Edison Community College that sits in
Page 173
July 26, 2005
here. Our neighbor to the south is Stock Development. And he's going
to develop some two-story complexes in here and he's going to
develop some single-family homes in this particular site that we've
talked to him about.
We've also said that -- and he asked us if he would have some say
in the landscaping of the site. We said absolutely, we want him to be
in the site development plan with us, because in no way, shape or form
do we want to take away from his development or his price line.
He has some -- and again, I've got to get two hands on this thing.
But in that area right there where that little tip is to the south, the --
he's got some high-priced lines that he's going to put in there,
multi-million dollar type homes. So we are more than agreeable with
him in order to -- we have him involved in the site development plan
to make sure that we provide him and the neighbors with the best
alternatives to that particular issue.
I just want to make sure that they're comfortable, that we vet this
some more. Mr. Ochs and the team went down and talked to the
presidents of the homeowners association on Wednesday in that
process. I need to get an official agreement with Mr. Stock, because
there is an agreement on this 20-acre parcel.
And I'd like to hold off on this particular item and ask the board
to continue this item until the 13th of September to make sure that I
have that legal document in hand. I need your authority to go out there
and get that document changed, and we'll work through your summer
recess in order to do that.
So I would like to have two -- I'd like to have direction from the
board to go out there and get the agreement modified that would let us
have an emergency services complex on this 20 acres, and that's with
Mr. Stock.
And then the second item is that you continue this particular
petition until the 13th of September.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
Page 174
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just a couple of things. I
wanted to know, how far above sea level is the Santa Barbara site?
And how far above sea level is the Lely site?
MR. HOVELL: For the record, Ron Hovell, Principal Project
Manager in the Facilities Management Department.
Ma'am, I'm afraid I don't know the answer above sea level. I
know the engineer's reference talks about the current site being about
eight feet above a reference point, which I don't believe is sea level,
but as a comparison sake, the Lely site is approximately the same
height. So as far as -- Jim von Rinteln from Emergency Management
could address which flood zone and storm zone they're in.
But I believe our design goal would probably be to bring in about
the same amount of fill to bring it to the same rough elevation.
The one other piece of information that you might want to know
is what's the crown of the road at Santa Barbara versus Lely Cultural.
And I only, unfortunately, know the answer to the first, which is 14
and a half feet.
So when I mentioned before, the site's at eight feet and the road
crowns at 14 and a half, we're going to have to bring in somewhere in
the neighborhood of eight to 10 feet of fill to get it up to the level
where we'd want to build on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just knew that there was a lot of
flooding in that area, and so I was just wondering if that's going to
affect. And I only asked that question just because I'm curious. Let
me go on --
MR. YON RINTELN: They're essentially the same,
Commissioner. So we've looked at that and it's very close. It's about a
foot difference. Actually, it's on a piece of high ground there in the
Lely area. So we've looked at it and we're very comfortable with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the people in Lely are fine.
You know, I told the people in Countryside a while back, I said, we're
happy to have them here, you know, we get our electricity on faster
Page 175
July 26, 2005
than anybody else when the EOC is located right down our street and
we've got all of those services ready and handy. And not only that,
but if anybody is having any problems with EMS or anything, you
know, they're there in a snap. So I don't have a problem with that.
But I will tell you one of the things I'm concerned with, and
when you're coming back to us on the 13th of September, I'd like you
to incorporate this into your report, if it would agree with the other
Commissioners. I still keep thinking about that landfill. And the
landfill is on high ground, we all know. The good thing about the
landfill is it's there for any kind of expansion you want.
We're building this thing now, and I've talked to Mr. Mudd about
this, I've talked to Mr. Schmitt about this, so everybody knows my
feelings, except for the Commissioners, they haven't heard it. That
landfill is ready for any kind of expansion. We're planning this thing
now, not to last us for 20 years but to last us for 50 years. We want it
to be the premier EOC. We want it to do everything we want it to do.
We want to have extra storage. We don't want to eliminate storage,
we want to have extra storage. We want to have everything that has to
do with not only communications, but also all of the emergency
servIces.
And can you really provide that in a place where the space is
limited? I don't think so. Not only that, if you need an extra tower or a
higher tower in order to get out to the Gulf of Mexico, you don't have
a problem. Nobody's going to be complaining about it at the landfill.
Build three towers, if you feel like it, and build them as high as you
want, nobody's going to complain, not even the birds.
So I thought you ought to take a look at that. No neighbors there,
no noise problems there, you don't have a problem at all.
I've heard that there was money involved. They said, oh well, it's
going to cost money to buy the landfill. Even though the County
owns it, it's owned by one department and not another. But then, of
course, we own the Santa Barbara project right now, don't we, so we
Page 176
July 26, 2005
could just sell that and pay for the one at the landfill. So it's kind of
like a swap there. And I think that's a good thing.
They said, well, there isn't electricity and water. But I'm here to
tell you that if you go right over to the landfill and you're in their little
trailer there, there's electricity and water, because I've flushed the
toilet there and I've turned on the lights there, so I know it works.
And they said, well, you need fiber optic, but it comes right up to
951 and Davis anyway, so you extend it a little bit further and you've
got all your fiber optic there as well --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion here somewhere?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm asking them to check this
out.
And lastly, the reason I'm pushing this is, and I explained this to
Mr. Mudd the other day, when we built the south County water
treatment plant there over in old Lely, at the time whoever thought
that we'd ever expand to these lengths, you know, we never knew we'd
have so many people here. Well, of course now we've expanded out.
You can't expand it anymore, because there's houses all around it.
And I thought, as long as we're planning for something, let's plan
it right and put it in an area where we can expand. Even though we
don't think it's ever going to -- we're going to need any more, heavens,
we should have the appropriate land, and we've got it at the landfill.
So I ask, if it's okay with my fellow Commissioners, to
incorporate that in your presentation for the 13th of September as
well. Thank you.
MS. PRICE: We will do so.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who is next? You were next?
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Ifwe're able to go
to the Lely Cultural Parkway's site, would we be able to build the full
size facility there?
Page 177
July 26, 2005
MS. PRICE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Seems like everybody doesn't want
this in their backyard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, we don't mind it here, just plan
for your future.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't you put it in District 2?
I have 17-story buildings and 22-story buildings in District 2. It
doesn't seem to be a problem when those PUDs come before this
Board of County Commissioners. I'm sure that the people in District 2
would love to have a nice four-story building to have a nice EOC
building there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, this really is a request for a
continuance, not a debate on what item we're going to approve, okay?
Now, is there anybody who is--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have to comment.
Commissioner Halas, if I sounded like I didn't want it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what it sounded like to me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no, no. It's fine. And you
know, we can have it, but are we going to be planning for this building
or are we going to be planning for future growth as well is my point.
And if we're not planning for future growth, fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
continue this item, and I -- Commissioner, I understood, you said it
from the beginning what your intent was.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second your motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion for a
continuance from Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner
Coletta.
Could we include in that --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have people that are signed up
to speak and you're going to -- I think you need to ask them if they're
Page 178
July 26, 2005
going to waive or not --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, we're not going to have a public
hearing. We're going to continue this. There's no point in having a
public hearing on something that you can't even tell the people what
you're doing.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have no idea where you're going to
put it, what are people going to say --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- you know? They have nothing -- they
can't comment on this kind of speculation.
So we need to present to the people a final plan. And so you're
going to come back with a final plan in September?
MR. MUDD: 13 September, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 13th of September. And we have a
motion on the floor -- we haven't even opened the public hearing yet.
But okay, we've closed the public hearing.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes unanimously. It is
continued until September, when we will have hopefully a final plan
to present to you, and then you can tell us what you think of it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I also need your authority to work
on this change to contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that is guidance. You don't need a
formal motion for that, right?
Page 179
July 26, 2005
MR. MUDD: Sir, I'd appreciate it if I got a motion on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
seconded by Commissioner Halas to give the County Manager the
authority to go out and negotiate with Mr. Stock with respect to that
location. But I also understand you're going to be looking at the
landfill.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. So you'll choose one of those
to present to us next time or we will choose among those alternatives
next time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we make a motion that if it
doesn't work out with Stock, that we look in District 2?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's too far away --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what I'm going to do on 13
September is I'm going to come back to this board and tell you what
we're going -- what our recommendation is for the Bembridge PUD
petition, okay? And if it's to modify what we have on the table right
now, we are going to say that. And if there's an alternative that we
think is better, we're also going to let you know about that too before
you cancel out on the PUD.
I believe this PUD has some things we need to talk about. The
school, and I think we need to talk about the EMS station, irrespective
of what happens to the emergency services center.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And by the way, I don't have any
objection to you looking in Commissioner Halas's district either. I
don't think distance is an issue with the EOC.
But nevertheless, we've got a motion on the floor.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 180
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's -- you've got your guidance.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Sorry if we
inconvenienced you. Hopefully we'll sort this thing out by next time.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us -- sir, let's give
ourselves a couple seconds while they clear the room.
Commissioner, I remind you, you still have a hot mic.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Mr.
Chairman, you have a hot mic.
Item #10G
THE SELECTION OF A QUALIFIED FIRM AND AWARD A
CONTRACT UNDER ITN 05-3583 "CEI SERVICES FOR
COLLIER COUNTY ROAD PROJECTS" FOR PROJECT NO.
60005 "GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD, FROM GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY TO POMPEI LANE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,195,286
- APPROVED
Sir, the next item is 1 O(G). It's a recommendation to approve
selection of a qualified firm and award a contract under ITN-053583,
CEI Services for Collier County road projects, for project No. 60005,
Goodlette-Frank Road, from Golden Gate Parkway to Pompeii Lane
in the amount of$1,195,286.
And Mr. Norman Feder, your Administrator for transportation
services, will present.
Page 181
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you very
much. Good presentation, Norm.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. Can I take one
second, though, and introduce Jay Ahmad, who is your new Director
for Transportation Engineering and Construction Manager. He's been
on the job for all of one week. I was going to let him handle all the
hard questions, so now he knows how hard it gets sometimes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, just make sure he understands his
obligation to get this finished much, much faster than we finished the
portion in Commissioner Halas's district, okay?
MR. FEDER: Understood, sir. Thank you.
MR. AHMAD: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission. My name is Jay Ahmad. I'm your new transportation
director. I had the pleasure to have met a couple, I think three of you
Commissioners, and I look forward to working with us and the
citizens of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Welcome aboard.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Welcome aboard.
Page 182
July 26, 2005
Item #10H
THE AWARD OF BID #05-3849 TO D. N. HIGGINS, INC. AND
APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
THE 12TH AVENUE INTERCONNECT BOOSTER PUMPING
STATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,083,000, PROJECT NUMBER
71006 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10(H). It's a
recommendation to award to bid No. 053849 to D.N. Higgins, Inc. and
approve the necessary budget amendment for the 12th Avenue
interconnect booster pumping station in the amount of $1,083,000.
Project No. 71006.
And Mr. Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities, will
present.
MR. DeLONY: Commissioners, here are the staff
recommendations in this project as listed in your executive summary.
Here are the components of this project with regard to it being
part of our overall wellfield reliability program. And it is consistent
with what we need with regard to both our master plans in the capital
plan that's included in our '05 budget.
This chart here represents where this piece comes into the puzzle
of improving the reliability of our well fields and our water supply in
Collier County. And this particular component is certainly part of our
medium range strategy that you all approved overall over a series of
the last year as we improved both the number and the reliability of our
raw water supply to both our north and our south plants.
Here is the project scope. Basically we're going to have a booster
station that will take some of the fresh water and mix it with the saline
water and allow us to use these existing saline wells to increase the
available raw water at our North Collier water treatment plant. And
we believe this is an effective use of those currently saline wells
Page 183
July 26, 2005
which we're not able to use because of the saline content. By blending
it with this raw fresh water, we'll be able to utilize those wells.
Here is our current project cost. It was brought in at a low bid.
As you can see in the executive summary, it was well within the
engineer's estimate.
And with that, I close with the staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So low bid?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any -- are there any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
Item #101
A SPECIAL CYCLE TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY
Page 184
---,,~,.. ~,-~_.
July 26, 2005
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, PRIMARILY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF: 1) ADDING A PROVISION FOR THE
RECLAMATION OF EXCESS INTENSITY FROM
DEVELOPMENTS THA T HAVE ACHIEVED A BUILT OUT
STATUS WITH LESS THAN THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF
DWELLING UNITS; 2) ADDING TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRS) BONUS PROVISIONS; 3)
CLARIFYING TDR CREDIT USAGE IN ASSOCIATION WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT OF STAND ALONE GOLF COURSES
AND RESIDENTIAL GOLF COURSE PROJECTS; AND, 4)
MODIFYING SOME RURAL VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS - APPROVED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to Item 10(1), which
used to be 16(A)(15). It's a recommendation to approve a special cycle
to amend the Collier County Land Development Code, primarily for
the purpose of, one, adding a provision for the reclamation of excess
intensity from developments that have achieved a build-out status with
less than the permitted number of dwelling units.
Number two, adding transfer of development rights, TDRs, bonus
prOVIsIons.
Number three, clarifying TDR credit usage in association with
the development of stand-alone golf courses and residential golf
course projects.
And four, modifying some rural village development standards.
And this item was asked to be on the regular agenda from the
consent agenda by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And if I could, I'd like to
go right to what the problem is. What I'd like to do is save the
commission a lot of time going through the whole process. I know
you've probably already seen it, but I have here the final letter from
Dr. Nicholas.
Page 185
July 26, 2005
MR. MUDD: It's on your visualizers, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And for that very reason, it's
just what I suspected in the beginning. It was never the intent of the
commission, or it was presented to us that a golf course, stand-alone
golf courses could reuse the TDRs over again. It was intended for
them to be used just for the golf courses. And Mr. -- Dr. Nicholas has
confirmed that in this letter that he wrote.
So I'd like to remove that from consideration so that we can go
forward without having to go through this long process over and over
again with an item that should be a dead horse.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not sure what we're doing.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, for the record, Joe Schmitt,
Community Development Environmental Services Administrator.
That is a request for a special cycle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand. But I don't understand
what Dr. Nicholas' letter really, really means.
MR. SCHMITT: Rather than debate the issue -- and I think since
this cycle has already started, we have already publicly vetted these
Land Development Code amendments. What Commissioner Coletta is
asking to do is to remove the one in regards to the bonus associated
with the TDR and the golf course. Certainly you can do that. But
another venue, another opportunity to do that -- and I would have to
defer to the County Attorney . We already -- this is just asking for the
LDC hearing dates to be established for the special cycle.
We can deal with that specific LDC amendment at that time or
you can at this time remove that from this LDC cycle.
There are other LDC amendments associated with the TDR
program. This is just one LDC amendment that dealt specifically with
TDRs and the bonuses associated with golf courses.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we could deal with the golf course
issue at the time this comes before us, we don't have to deal with it
right now?
Page 186
July 26, 2005
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. Or you could direct us now.
But I would have to defer to the County Attorney in regards to some
of these that have already gone through the public hearing process. It
may be problematic to try and remove it now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. SCHMITT: And I understand what Commissioner Coletta's
doing, he's trying to save time and not debate it at the LDC hearings.
But again, it's your call. We can simply do the same thing at the LDC
hearing at these scheduled dates and just recommend denial.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I would be reluctant to try to
shortcut the public hearing process. You know, this -- if we're going
to eliminate something of this nature, it's my feeling we should do it
during a public hearing when everybody is informed about what it is
we're considering and why we're doing it.
MR. SCHMITT: And I would recommend that as well, even
though it does seem to be somewhat bureaucratic. It is advertised as
part of the special cycle. It's advertised as part of these LDC
amendments, and it could be debated at that time, when in fact
everybody is duly notified that that is the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I didn't want to belabor
this. I just wanted to try to take something off the back of the
Commissioners that should be well understood that it's nothing that
going to fly in the end. I talked to Bruce Anderson about it. He
understood. I don't think he's even here anymore.
MR. SCHMITT: He's here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He is?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I mean, it's a dead issue and we
understand that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If it's a dead issue, we can go
through the motions and everything. We already took more time on
this than I thought we would have to. If somebody wants to make a
motion and move this forward, I don't think I'll vote for it, but --
Page 187
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve with the
amendments by Commissioner Coletta. And I have a question, though.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not even an amendment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm moving to approve your
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: The recommendation to remove that specific
amendment from the LDC cycle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The advertising, does that come
from the general fund or the permit use funds?
MR. SCHMITT: These are LDC amendments initiated by -- they
come from -- in this case Fund 111 pays for this. This is a general
fund. These are items that were -- as a result of the rural fridge mixed
use district overlay implementation guidance, and that's a general fund
activity. So the general fund will pay for this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My motion still stands.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second still stands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we have a motion and a
second to approve the recommendation for the special cycle to amend
the Collier County Land Development Code with the exception of the
transfer of development rights bonus provisions as referenced by the
Nicholas letter.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that correct? Okay, any further
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, I have one speaker. Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bob Krasowski. I'm here as a 26, 27 -year resident
of Collier County. I'm here on a personal interest issue regarding
Page 188
July 26, 2005
Land Development Codes. And I have to ask for your assistance and
direction on how I should approach my specific interest. And so I'm
jumping in here now because I saw on the agenda Land Development
Code issues.
In my personal situation, I own a house that straddles two lots.
It's east of Highway 41 in the area just north of Naples City, but below
Pine Ridge Road, in that residential area. My situation is very similar
to people in Naples Park and in Naples Manor. We're an old
neighborhood and it would be beneficial to the entire community if
you would encourage redevelopment there, okay?
As it stands now, though, I cannot -- the zoning's been changed
since I bought my house, which prohibits me from splitting my lots,
going back to the original 50-foot wide lots and building two houses.
Why this would serve my purpose, I would be able to -- if I could split
it, I could sell one lot and then use the money to build a nice new
house on the other lot.
So what I'm looking for today, and I know your special LDC
cycle here that you're talking about was particular to a specific other
situation, but what I'm looking for is to just make it known that I have
an interest in looking to accommodate my desires here and those of
many people throughout Naples Park, Naples Manor and my
neighborhood, because 50-foot lots are allowed to be built on if they
were never built on before, so the neighborhood's being developed that
way.
And what I want to initiate is that I have this interest and I'd like
to know where in the LDC process -- these cycles are complicated. It's
hard for just a regular person in the community to get into the cycle.
I did attend a subcommittee meeting of the Planning Commission
that was talking about the LDC cycles, and brought this up, but I'm
still not clear on how to represent my position in the process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bob, your best bet is to get with Joe
Schmitt and get some guidance from Joe as to what the code really
Page 189
July 26, 2005
requires and what modifications will be necessary to address your
concerns. And that would be the easiest and best way to do it. This is
not the place to do it. We couldn't possibly take care of that issue in
this particular item.
MR. KRASOWSKI: But you were able to guide me to Joe
Schmitt and that's all that -- thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, thank you.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
Item #10J
TRANSMIT SENATE BILL 360 GLITCH AMENDMENTS AS
PROVIDED BY COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT STAFF TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION, THE
FLORIDA SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
AND THE FLORIDA HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GROWTH
MANAGEMENT, AND THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES - APPROVED
Page 190
July 26, 2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 10(J), and that used to be Item 16(F)(8).
And that reads, recommendation to approve and transmit Senate
Bill 360, glitch amendments as provided by Collier County
government staff to the Collier County legislative delegation, the
Florida Senate Committee on Community Affairs and the Florida
House Committee on Growth Management and the Florida
Association of Counties. This item was pulled to go to the regular
agenda by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner, I guess I'm going to present on this particular
item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's find out what Commissioner
Coletta's problem -- well, I'm sorry, go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead
and present, I don't want to disrupt the process.
MR. MUDD: This particular issue, we had a workshop in June.
We took all the staff input. We took the input that you provided in a
letter to our delegation after that workshop. We've gone over this
particular bill again with a fine tooth comb.
Mr. Feder and myself have both had conversations with DCA
reps last week. Norman had his at the RPC meeting and I had mine
down at Marco Island during the Naples Chamber of Commerce
environmental summer school. And we talked about the particular
Issue.
I will tell you, based on the conversation at the workshop and the
conversations that we had last week, Norman and I, we cannot make --
there's nothing in this bill that lets us have a stricter rule for
concurrency or growth management in Collier County than what's
written in the particular bill. I want to make sure that the board
understands that, because there was some comments that were made
during the workshop, well, yeah, you can make it stricter. I've talked
with Ms. Carrie Roth, who was also at Marco Island, along with the
DCA rep.
Page 191
July 26, 2005
What's in the bill basically says that if you have a project, a road
project within your five-year plan, your road building plan, that the
developer can come to the board and basically -- or come to the
County and say here is my pay as you go, and at that particular
juncture you can't stop them, even if you don't have concurrency on
the road and even if the road isn't scheduled to be constructed into the
fifth year.
Now you would stop that right now in the second year, based on
our Growth Management Plan. So it is very important for us to
forward these particular changes to those respective agencies so that
we get our concerns made.
And I know that Commissioner Halas is on the Growth
Management Panel. We've provided these particular comments to him
and some additional information based on specific questions that were
asked by the committee that he's going to have their first meeting
tomorrow on. It's important that Collier County is able to have a
stricter growth management rule in the particular County to fit in with
what the board has passed in the last three years in order to get that
process done.
From a Growth Management bill for the State of Florida, I was
very surprised to learn last week, maybe I'm naive, but I was very
surprised to find out that other counties don't do all the things that we
do. They don't put an AUIR report in every year. Some counties
haven't done one in seven years. They haven't looked at their road
capacity. Some counties in Florida have a 175 percent rule that they
allow development until the road capacity is 175 percent of what it's
built for before they say anything about it or before they kick it into
their plan. Some folks don't report to the DCA.
So this bill basically put some financial penalties in that they
never had before for counties that don't abide by the Growth
Management Plan.
It also put 150 -- excuse me, $1.5 billion worth of funding -- partr
Page 192
July 26, 2005
of it was recurring -- half of it was recurring, half of it was one-time
monies, and there's a commitment to do that over the next 10 years.
So hopefully the delegations, when they do the budgets and the
Governor approves them, that those dollars are there for forthcoming
years.
From a standpoint from all the counties in Florida, it probably
tells them that they've got to have growth management. And a lot of
counties, I would say the majority probably don't. I will say that
Collier County stands out amongst one of the best counties in the State
of Florida as far as its growth management and concurrency laws that
you've worked hard as a commission to do.
So I think it's important for us to communicate our particular
issues so that in the glitch cycle we can get something in there that
says a County can have a stricter rule. That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So let's make sure we understand. Our
concern all along has been that this bill will undermine our
concurrency management system.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that still the staffs position?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm quite lengthy in here. Sorry.
I waited all day to be lengthy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know, you haven't said anything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you could follow through on
this item on the last, very last page of the recommendations. I'm
working from the back to the front.
Impact fee task force. Basically saying that we don't want you to
touch our water and wastewater impact fees. Well, we don't want to
touch any of the impact fees through the task force.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's exactly right.
Page 193
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But here's the problem. The
task force is going to meet -- this summer is going to make
recommendation to the leadership by February.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So why don't we remove this
and ask the task force members to keep us whole in all our impact
fees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's what this says. By the way,
I didn't write this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're directing your question to me.
But I agree with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're the policy makers, we're
going to vote on this, and I want to talk to my colleagues and not our
staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, the -- that reference that you're
talking about actually comes under public utilities division. So that's
the only thing they're talking about is water and wastewater projects.
If you go to the transportation portion of this document, I think
you might find that there's the same sentiment expressed in
transportation. You don't find it there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. But let me continue. I
think that should be addressed at the task force on all impact fees.
And especially water and sewer, I think. Municipalities throughout the
whole state and the country has charged some impact fee for capital
improvements.
The next one is No.5, funds not to be used for the CERP
projects. In Bill 360 from last night until this morning, early this
morning, it says nothing about funding ofCERP for projects.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But I think they're asking for
clarification on that to say let's make sure it doesn't do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Make sure that doesn't happen --
Page 194
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean -- well, can you go
out and buy a six-pack of beer under it? Because it doesn't say you
can't buy a six-pack of beer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you know, those are kinds of
interpretations that should not be raised in legislation. Legislation
should be clear. If you're going to have money allocated for things --
and by the way, under transportation services division there is a
statement about impact fees under Paragraph No.6. Transportation
services division says, hey, we have -- currently have impact fees and
we want to keep them. It doesn't make sense to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to direct that to the
committee, I feel, and the legislators after the committee makes a
recommendation to the legislators.
But if you're going to put in everything that you should not use
the available funds, you should broaden it and include everything. I
think it clearly spells out what you can and cannot use it for. That's
the only thing.
Here's another one, Commissioner, I think that we all have angst
on it. Number four, it's stating that, you know, the bill calls for a use
in the BEBR estimates, and it's saying that Collier County goes
beyond BEBR, and therefore, in Collier County, by regulators to force
Collier County only to plan to slow -- slower levels of growth. So
what? Isn't that what we want? I mean, isn't that what the public
wants?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's what I want.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, if they're going
to take on the responsibility, so what? I don't have any problem with
that.
Again, it talks about CERP. Bill says nothing about CERP? I
think what we need to do, in the case of water resources, we need to
have some -- ask our legislation delegation to work with us to get the
district to look favorable on the County in our needs, our water
Page 195
July 26, 2005
resources needs and our permits. Because like we've been told, we've
been jerked around and not been considered for the permits needed to
-- for projects coming in the future.
There is a lot of things in this bill that is good, and there's a lot of
things in there that I totally support. What we're saying is we want to
have a concurrency tougher than what it states in here, and it doesn't
allow to us do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we need to do is focus on
these smaller things instead of being so broadband -- broad with our
statements. You know, statement number 12 is correct. I mean, we're
talking about increasing -- allowable increase in density in high hazard
coastal area. We don't want that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we need to state that. And
that's what the community doesn't want. But there are some mays and
there are some shalls. And I just want -- if we're going to go to our
delegation, let's concentrate on what we want. And if we need
clarification, then we need clarification.
It was my understanding that we can be tougher in laws. It's Mr.
Feder's and our County Manager's from their staff members and the
State of Florida says we can't be tougher on concurrency. That
concerns me, and I know that concerns this commission.
I just want to focus on what's important and make some wins
with our delegation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: First of all, it -- we sent a letter to our
delegation, at least I sent a letter to our delegation, outlining my
concerns with these things back in June. This particular set of
concerns has already been transmitted to the state; is that true?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I've sent them and said that this was a draft
particular item, that it was going to be aired by the Board of County
Commissioners, and based on your input to me, I would make changes
Page 196
July 26, 2005
to it. Because they gave us some suspense that said basically it had to
be in by 20 July.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. So it's gone. But it also says that
you reserve the right to make other changes as they're identified. So I
would suggest that if any of the Commissioners have some concerns
about this, that they write them down, give them to staff and let staff
incorporate them in a follow-up response to the state and to our
legislators.
It is very, very clear to me that there is a serious problem with
this growth management bill, which I've maintained from the very
beginning. And it's beginning to become very, very clear.
Who's next? Commissioner Henning isn't finished yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm not finished. And I
have a problem. We haven't given direction to send any letter to our --
to the state on behalf of the Board of Commissioners.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I didn't do that. There was a
suspense that I had to get the information in for the Senate side of the
House for their committee and the House. And I basically took
everything from the workshop that we had that was put together and I
put it -- and you're seeing it today -- and I basically said in that letter
that after the board either approves or disapproves, that I would be
changing that particular draft item because I needed the board's
approval to give a Collier County opinion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's what I thought
it is, and this opinion, I would like to shorten it a little bit. Because I
feel that we are -- there is some repetitiveness in it. And there has
nothing in there about CERP in the bill. And I got it here. Looked at
it last night, got up early this morning and still looked at it and made
some notes. Was quite surprised by -- I was very happy of the review
of our County staff. But of some of the concerns are not valid.
MR. MUDD: Sir, the CERP particular issue was brought up at
the workshop with Mr. Roy Anderson. I made it a point. There is
Page 197
July 26, 2005
money that is in this bill that basically goes to each one of the water
districts. It's laid out by the amount that goes to each. I will tell you
that the federal government has not been forthcoming to the South
Florida Water Management District in the State of Florida as far as the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program is concerned, and
there's fear amongst all the counties in South Florida that basically
they will take their allocation of money and it will end up in CERP,
not go out to water supplies for the counties that it was intended to go
to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's like if we tell you
we're going to give you $50 million for transportation and you go
spend it on the sewer plant.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think -- well, first of all, I don't
think the Clerk of Court will allow you to do that. Second of all,
you're going to have five unhappy bosses.
If the legislation said, we want you to spend this money on
alternative water resources, such as ASR, water conservation, and they
spend it on CERP, which is a federal project of restoration, I think
they're going to be very upset about that. I don't think, first of all,
they're going to have any clearance to spend that money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me ask -- what difference does it
make? You're raising a question to them. Either they will answer it or
they will change the legislation. Why not raise the question, if it's a
concern?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you're going to send to it state
staff, I understand. But I don't want to be embarrassed before the
legislators of, you know, hey, where does it say that we're going to
spend it on CERP? Because it doesn't have anything in there about
CERP in the bill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The problem is that it -- and we're going
to have to get some other Commissioners too, but the problem is that
Page 198
July 26, 2005
it's money being given to a water management district that is not under
government -- local government control. It's an independent agency.
We don't have anything to say about how that money is spent. And if
the state agency isn't very, very clear about how the money is spent,
then the water management districts will make the determination.
It would appear to me that the state legislators would want to be
very specific about how that money is spent. And if there is a County
or more than one County that has a concern that it might be diverted to
something else, I would think a state legislator would be anxious to try
to clarify that and say, oh, by the way, we want to make sure this goes
for the purposes that we intended it. And if it's not clear in the
legislation, they should clear it up.
Who was next, Commissioner Fiala or Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta was, I
believe. He's the one that brought this --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, his light isn't on, but he was the one
who pulled this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Halas, go
ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. I didn't pull it for
any of this. To be honest with you, I found that the letter that you
drafted to the legislative delegation covered our concerns quite well.
And I personally like what we have together here as far as the glitch
amendments go.
Can we add more to it? Yes. Commissioner Henning is right,
obviously the state legislative body has been working on this for a
long time, and they don't have it perfect yet.
The reason I pulled it, it was none of the above. The reason I
pulled it is how we got to where we were. I really took offense of how
the whole meeting came down, after the meeting, when I found out
how the process went.
Page 199
July 26, 2005
I have documentation here I would like to share with you. I
watched the meeting several times to try to find out exactly what it
was the staff members did wrong. And for the life of me, everything
seemed to come down right to the letter of everything that we got in
here of all members of the staff and your letter to Mr. Mudd. And I'm
not staying that you were in violation of the County Manager's
Ordinance, but by God, I'll tell you, it was right on the line. And I
have a copy of the letter here, I've got a copy of the County Manager's
Ordinance, and I find it very disturbing that one Commissioner sits so
close to a project that he's running it like a dog and pony show to the
point where everybody's been rehearsed several times beforehand.
They've been reviewed on what they were supposed to say or not say.
I personally don't want to attend another workshop if I know one
Commissioner is totally involved in it to that point that everybody's
got a line they have to say. If you watch this tape, you'll see
everybody is reading from notes from beginning to end --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait, wait --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to speak on that, too. I
think that's very offensive.
If a staff member -- this is what I understand, and Commissioner
Coyle, straighten me out. If a staff member goes to a County
Commissioner and states certain statements and then goes before the
full body and the world and changes his statements or viewpoint, I
don't want that staff member to advise me again, period.
I don't see anything -- I've seen the letter. I don't see anything
that Commissioner Coyle violated any law. I think the County
Manager -- and I commend him for taking action of a staff member
that is flip-flopping. It doesn't look good for the County
Commissioner that has a lot of interest in a certain issue, and it doesn't
look good before the full board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, well, let me -- wait a minute, wait
a minute. Thank you very much, I appreciate that.
Page 200
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we need more of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But first of all, that's not the purpose for
this stopping, okay? If you've got a problem with my conduct and my
criticism of a staff member, and if you've got a problem with the
disposition of that, then let's bring it up at a separate meeting and let's
talk about it.
This is an issue which is necessary in order to get a piece of
legislation straightened out that we all agree is not in our best interest.
Now, I suspect you have a personal interest in this issue, that it
has offended you because somebody that you like --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- was perhaps transferred. But let's
make sure we're clear about a number of things. Every Commissioner
sitting on this board forms positions based upon staffs input. And we
have to depend upon the staff to be honest and straightforward with us
and consistent. And before I go out on a limb to defend the staff
position, I want to make sure that they know what they're talking
about. And so I will sit down with the County Manager and I will
discuss this.
And when a staff member changes a position on me after I have
supported his position, then I have less confidence in that staff
member, and I will notify the County Manager when that happens.
And if the County Manager feels, based upon his independent
evaluation, that he needs to make some personnel changes, that's
entirely the County Manager's responsibility.
Now, if you have a debate with that, then let's schedule a meeting
and we'll have a debate about it, but right now let's deal with the
legislation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You made a statement. I should
be able to respond.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I mean, you're talking about
something that has nothing to do with the subj ect we're talking about.
Page 201
July 26, 2005
If you've got a problem with my conduct, then you bring it up in a
special meeting and I'll be happy to be here and we'll discuss it in
great detail, okay? Let's not waste time discussing something where
you clearly have a personal issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I do not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you do. Yes, you do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I want to discuss. I
have no ties at all with Mr. Litsinger, absolutely zero. It could be
anybody. If Mr. Mudd tomorrow fired half of his staff and replaced
them, I wouldn't say a word. It's the circumstance that was there.
By the way, I'm agreeing with the findings we had. When I
reviewed the DVD on the meeting and I went down through exactly
what the recommendations were, I was having a hard time. Maybe
somebody would like to sit down with me and go through this DVD
and show me where Mr. Litsinger was contrary to what he said in the
past and then I'll totally understand. But I tried like crazy to find that
in this DVD. I just about wore the thing out going back and forth.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why don't we ask the County
Manager what he thinks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we put this on an
agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has nothing to do with the
item on today's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It really doesn't.
Was this your decision?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, it was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you feel it was a justified decision?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We had a -- and let me tell you the
background a little bit. We had two pre-meetings to this particular
workshop. I had set the agenda and who was going to speak, based on
items that they had laid out with the bill. And the person mentioned
Page 202
July 26, 2005
was going to take the lead, introduce the particular issues and go over
the particular items that he had brought forward in that particular bill,
and then he was going to turn it over to the impact fee coordinator, to
transportation, to the utility representative and then he was going to
conclude in his remarks.
It -- and that was gone over to ask and discuss what in particular
this individual was going to do. And then a week later, day before the
workshop, we went over the particular issues to make sure that
nobody had changed their minds, there was no shortcuts. Somebody
had got additional information from a lobbyist or one of our planners
from Tallahassee that we have contact with that we have a standing
contract with, and I'm talking about Ms. Linan and Ms. Marti
Chumbler, who come to see us on a regular basis that have something
to do with legislation.
And at that particular juncture, everybody who went around
asked of the folks if they had any changes to the particular issue, and
there was none. Went over in excruciating detail what folks were --
you know, what are you going to say in front of the board and are you
basically staying with the line that you've got on the written form.
And that was indeed the case.
The day of the workshop what was said that was going to be said
was not said by this particular individual, nor -- and as we were
finishing up, he leaned over to me and said I have no concluding
remarks. I'm going, wait a minute, this is the agenda, it was set up so
that you would conclude in that particular process. And so I was left
hanging at that particular workshop by same.
At that particular juncture, he had -- I looked at Leo and said,
Leo, I talked to several members, and that was nowhere -- that was at
the meeting, and the particular statements and the presentation that
was done was nowhere near what was promised to be done by that
particular --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one question, and I can
Page 203
July 26, 2005
probably let this whole thing go away.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, we don't need to
interfere with the County Manager's decisions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one question. I'm not
interfering, I just want to have one question to find out if he was
interfered with.
Would this whole process still have taken place if you didn't
receive a letter from Commissioner Coyle? If your answer to that is
yes, then I'm thrilled, I've got nothing more to add to it. If your
answer is no, then I don't know where we should go with it at that
point.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I had serious concerns that I had
been lied to and I was going to take actions. Now, I also received a
letter at the same time. So to say that I -- what I would do without the
-- I'm going to tell you I had serious concerns that I believe I was lied
to by a staff person. And it wasn't one where that person didn't have
an opportunity to say I had a change of heart.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, what we'll do is we'll take
a little bit of time, it's about 15 minutes in there, and you can show me
where all this was, because it wasn't evident in the DVD.
MR. MUDD: No problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm going to make one more
comment, and then we've got to get back to the point.
Are you suggesting that no Commissioner should write a letter to
the County Manager expressing displeasure with any staff member?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm glad you asked that, because
I'm basing it upon what I read, and maybe I misinterpreted it. In the
County Manager's office, it says no County Commissioner shall direct
or request the appointment of any person or to remove them from
office by a County Administrator or any of his subordinates or any
manner take part in --
Page 204
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we take a break? I mean,
this is getting --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you asked me for an
answer, and I was just going by -- giving you the reasoning I came up
with how, why we got this before us now. If you don't want to hear it,
that's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a min\lte. Did you read my letter?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did it ask for the replacement of --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Listen to this -- it's like a death
-- it's a death sentence.
I consider Mr. Litsinger's conduct to be both dishonest and
disloyal. His betrayal of our efforts has unnecessarily complicated the
process of getting the legislative (sic) modified to be more acceptable
to Collier County. I no longer have any confidence in Mr. Litsinger's
recommendations.
With something like that, what is the County Manager going to
do?
Now, maybe I misinterpreted the intent of this and how the whole
thing is put together. Why don't you share them with everybody so
everybody is on the same page.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What you didn't read, Mr. Coletta--
Commissioner Coletta, was, it is my understanding that Mr. Litsinger
thinks I am trying to get him terminated. That is not true. You as the
County Manager need to make the determination if this is an isolated
case or a continuing pattern of behavior which affects staff credibility.
So there was no attempt at all to try to influence the termination,
transfer or anything else. It was merely an expression of
disappointment with a staff member, and I will continue to do that
every time it occurs, okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think that's your fiduciary
duty.
Page 205
July 26, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's exactly -- that's a responsibility--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When you took an oath.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, now, can we get back to the
subject?
Now, is that the reason you pulled this whole thing?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Other than that, I think
you did a marvelous job.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, you get a
turn to talk.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that I realize that
there's a difference of opinion on a lot of these issues that are coming
before us in the Land Development Codes that the state has put forth
in the Growth Management Plan. And I hope that you understand that
the reason that F AC put together a large committee, and it's kind of a
cross section of a lot of counties, is because they have a lot of
concerns in the areas that we have concerns in.
And I can assure you that I believe that the people that they have
in place represent not only the small counties, the rural counties, but
they also represent counties that have large growth such as ours, Palm
Beach, Martin County. And so there's a good representation, a
cross-pollinization, I guess you would say, of people who are actively
involved that are Commissioners, and they want answers.
And this is one of the main reasons that I've asked staff to put
together as much information in regards to this Growth Management
Plan so that we can hash it out. And, oh, by the way, I believe there's
also a couple of attorneys that have been also chosen to work on this
with -- in conjunction with the task force that's been put together in
regards to addressing these issues. So I know there's a difference of
opinion on some of the issues here, but just our Board of County
Commissioners alone, and I'm sure we're going to find that amongst
all the counties.
But I think we can move in the right direction, that we can give
Page 206
July 26, 2005
guidance to the glitch amendments to make sure that they're
addressed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. To bring it back to what we
were beginning to talk about, I wanted to know who was on the task
force. You mentioned the task force a couple of times. Who is that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a FAC task force. There's another
task force that is being created for impact fees and some other things,
but that hasn't been selected yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Is there anybody on there
representing us?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, Frank Halas is on the FAC--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. And we'll have -- so
we'll have strong representation to speak in our favor. Because I think
we're so unique. From what Jim Mudd was telling me in the office
yesterday, out of the 67 counties in Florida, we're probably about the
only one that really has this whole act together. And so they can't
write a law for everybody. But our -- but they can include us in
something like that, where the other counties need to be strengthened
or rather brought into line.
So I just wanted to make sure somebody was representing us.
Are we going to be writing our own amendments, being that -- I mean,
Commissioner Halas is going to probably need something in hand to
present.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've already got that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, yes. Staff has worked
diligently on this and has presented me with a lot of information that I
plan to share with my other Commissioners up there at F AC
tomorrow. This is the first meeting, to take place at Orlando.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I mentioned that we
were unique. And I think that the other counties -- we need to be
Page 207
July 26, 2005
tough. It's vital to our growth. It's vital to our growth. And I think the
other counties -- we don't want to be usurped by the other counties'
inadequacies. And that's enough to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, did you have
more?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there is, but I don't think
I'm getting anywhere. But I think you're sending the wrong message
to even our citizens when you say we don't want the district to limit
growth because of water resources.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I think that's worded poorly. I
really do. And I think we need to take a look at that, because I'm not
sure it conveys what was intended there.
But once again, I didn't write this, so I can't speak in defense of
it. But my concern was slightly different. But nevertheless, can we
solve this by asking --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we just send your
letter?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, because my letter wasn't complete.
I mean, it didn't include all the things that are mentioned in the staff
report. I think the staffhas done a good job of going through this and
ferreting out some of the other problems. I just don't think my letter at
the time was as complete as it could have been. I think this is a good
supplement to it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we make some addendums to
send up with Commissioner Halas for tomorrow?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, absolutely. Well, this was a
different thing from what Commissioner Halas is working on. But he
needs this, yes.
But this letter clearly said that we reserve the right to continue to
make some changes to this. So in order to address Commissioner
Henning's concerns and others, Mr. Mudd, can we just ask the staff to
clarify some of these remarks, or some of these issues a little bit, so
Page 208
July 26, 2005
that --
MR. MUDD: That's not a problem. What I believe, it's four,
second paragraph. It's on Page 6 of the thing, but it's page 15 of 16 of
agenda Item 16(F)(8).
The -- what they're basically saying is if you have a mandate
from the state that says you use the average BEBR when you do your
AUIR and you build your capacity on that, and you can't look at a
population that's coming on to your particular community faster than it
is in other countries is, then you are going to be okay as far as your
capacity is concerned on your AUIR with medium growth, but you
will be running out of water in real life and you will have sewage
spills on the street. Because even though you've made the Growth
Management Plan and you're okay and you've done what they've told
you to do, your real life predicament is a whole lot worse because
you've experienced higher growth rates.
And what they're basically saying is don't limit our growth rate in
your Growth Management Plan, let us use a growth rate that is
representative of what the community is experiencing. That's all it's
trying to say.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's what it says, though. The
emphasis on the statute is use medium BEBR growth projections, and
could be misinterpreted (sic) by regulators to force counties only to
plan for that slower level of growth. And if we want to change what
we're telling our citizens, we don't want a slower level of growth.
That's what I read into it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's true. I get that same
impression when I read it.
MR. MUDD: I guess what we need to say is we need to be able
to plan for a representation of what we're actually experiencing, versus
an arbitrary standard that doesn't necessarily fit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me tell you what my fear is and see
if it's the same as yours. My fear is that if we use the language that is
Page 209
July 26, 2005
in this bill and the water districts allocate water permits based upon
the BEBR itself, they're going to be giving some of our water to some
other communities. And although we're going faster than BEBR and
we are concurrent, our water is going to somebody else that isn't
growing as fast as BEBR. And that would be my concern.
Is that where you're trying to go with this?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, if I might, Mr. Mudd. For the record, Jim
DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator.
Sir, that certainly is one concern, but it's not the concern that I
share with regard to this recommendation.
F or the last year my frus -- not necessarily frustration, but
challenge has been to get the folks at South Florida to accept our
numbers in terms of demand for water equal to our growth and
projected growth demands.
This board has made the decision over the last three years that
I've been here that the proper model for water supply demand in
Collier County is to use the high BEBR. It provides us the best
indicator, at least it has been so far the best indicator, the actual
demand for water supply in the County, particularly given the fact that
we're using very difficult aquifers, that is brackish water aquifers for
our water supply needs at this time.
So it's very critical that the allocation and the approval and
support for exploitation of those water resources is recognized and
supported by the district.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, but Jim, let's suppose you were to
take exactly what they said in the bill.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you were to use the average BEBR
for your projections. We have a real-time concurrency process for
water and sewer. There is no delay. Nobody gets water or sewer
turned on unless we have the capacity.
MR. DeLONY: That's correct, sir.
Page 210
July 26, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So even if we use the lower BEBR
figures, what we would do merely is slow down growth so that growth
matches whatever water is available for withdrawal, right?
MR. DeLONY: Well, what has happened here up to now until
this was that you use your land use decisions -- your land use decision
to drive your decisions with regard to the pace of growth, and then
water and utilities are responsive to that decision.
This would make, in my view, and this is the reason I
recommend we consider this, is that do we choose water to the limiter
on growth or rather to be what has traditionally been the pattern here
in Collier County that this board sets land use decisions, which in turn
set the growth patterns, which in turn are evaluated by staff, and then
we provide the water and water supply for them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's the conflict that we have
with the way it's worded. Because I think Commissioner Henning and
I are both saying water should limit the growth. If the water supply
isn't adequate, then growth doesn't occur, right? Is that what you're
saying?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Water, transportation, schools.
MR. DeLONY: But if I might, sir, water will not necessarily be
a limiter if the district recognizes the need and we are able to prove to
the district.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let the developers fight that
Issue.
MR. DeLONY: If I might, sir, could I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry.
MR. DeLONY: We go before the water district and ask them for
a certain amount of water, through water use permitting processes.
That permit that they issue us to water is based on our proj ections of
need in terms of demand. I base that demand proj ections based on
your direction at the annual utilization and inventory report which
looks at your decision -- which reflects your land use decision, in turn
Page 211
July 26, 2005
drives the population, which will drive the demand for water.
That's how that process works. I get your direction, I go to the
board, the Water Management District, rather, and say this is what we
need, this is our projected need.
If you believe what was written by the Water Management
District in the year 2000 in the lower west coast water supply plan, it
says that there's sufficient water supplies, all but saline or brackish for
the growth projected that was in that plan.
So far we have not reached the limit of water supply availability
but rather the permitting of that supply with regard to the district's
planning.
I would just like the district to use a model in terms of their
allocation of water or their decisions associated with the allocation of
water, what they call the water budget, to reflect the demand that we
have here in Collier County. If the supply is not there, then obviously
it's going to become the limiter, sir, that you suggested that it should
be. But here to before it has not become a limiter, as long as we are
able to exploit deeper, softer aquifers for our water supply, or future
water supplies for our County customers. And that's where we're at.
I hope I've answered your question, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we could change the language
in there to projected -- the County's projected growth instead of the
BEBR, or historical growth or something like that, that's fine. I don't
mind for other agencies, and I know a lot of residents are concerned
about our resources, having the availability of resources. So I don't
want to have that proj ection out there that we want to speed up
growth, that we don't care of the resources being there. So just change
it.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, if I might, and I just -- and I certainly
understand exactly where you're coming from, and it kind of comes
down to what race horse you want to run the race. Water is not what
we're using, typically, at this stage of the game. What we are doing is
Page 212
July 26, 2005
generating a demand and then you charge staff to solve that puzzle of
demand with the supply that's made available to us through permitting
of the South Florida Water Management District.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The AUIR is the process.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A capital improvement project
is what is the driving force of growth. And I would recommend if we
don't get these things right, especially about transportation, that we
start cutting back our capital improvement element to be responsible
to the residents today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's--
MR. DeLONY: Just one last point. And I've said this before at
AUIR time. And I'm certainly not an advocate either way, it's your
decisions, but it's been our policy, the policy I've followed in terms of
advising you at AUIR, is that utilities, that is, the utilities associated
with water and wastewater, are not growth inducing, but they're
growth responsive insomuch that you dictate the land use and from
that land use policy made by board, Mr. Schmitt and his guys come up
with the population projections by traffic area zone, T AZ, and then I
take those numbers and look at those within context of the
water/sewer district, and then I apply the levels of service, 185 gallons
per day per person or 120 gallons per day per person for potable
water, and 120 gallons a day per person for wastewater, and it's a math
test after that. And it's just a supply and demand curve.
What's critical for me, sir, is that we select the right model or the
right projection of population in those T AZs so I'm not late to the
growth that's already been approved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The problem, Jim, is that under this
legislation you can't continue doing that, because they are going to
limit you on your water permits, and they directed you to pursue
alternative sources of water. And by the way, that isn't mentioned in
here. And that's a dangerous thing, because what they're going to do
Page 213
July 26, 2005
is they're going to tighten up on the well permits and they're going to
start pumping some of that well water to some other communities, and
we're going to have to look for alternative sources of water, alternative
sources of water are going to be more expensive, a la desalination, and
we're going to get stuck with the increased cost of doing that. And
that's the real danger here. But now let me get to the horse that you're
going to ride in on this thing.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. May I just make a comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, we don't have to wait for that day, we're
there already.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're there right now.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, we are the state's pace setter, for lack of a
better word, in the use of alternative water supplies. The model that
you currently have and approved for water supply in Collier County is
the envy of every other utility as it is approaching the constraints you
just described. They are coming to us and asking us what are we
doing and what have we learned. Mr. Mattausch, he's all become a
one-man road show of going around and talking to other water district
utilities as well as district utilities in our own district. I mean, he was
at the east coast last week, for example, talking this very subject.
Sir, we're on a pace right now, given what we have outlined in
our current master plan and approved by this board, that we will be 80
percent leveraged in our water supply with alternative water today. I
mean, that's our plan today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it doesn't stop there. What happens
is that you keep looking for other alternative water supply sources,
and the ultimate alternative water supply source is the Gulf of Mexico.
That gets really, really expensive. And that's where we're going to go
ultimately under this bill, and that bothers me a lot.
But let's talk about the concurrency process, and that's where
Commissioner Henning and I believe that this language and perhaps
Page 214
July 26, 2005
our process needs to be changed because of this legislation. Because
of the effect this legislation will have on us, it becomes necessary that
we view the water supply as a bank account, and then just like on the
roads, before we approve another development, we see if there's
enough money in that bank account to support that development and
that increased population. And if there isn't, that development doesn't
get approved.
Now, this bill is going to force us then to go look for alternative
water sources, which is more expenses, which means we're going to
increase impact fees a lot higher --
MR. DeLONY: And user fees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And user fees, okay. So it's a vicious
cycle.
But I don't think we can permit the increase in population to drive
our water production. We've got to take our water production and
allocate it to whatever development that we have coming before us.
And if we don't have the water, then we've got -- we can't approve the
development.
MR. DeLONY: You know, that--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That makes the difference.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, exactly -- that's exactly our in-stride
program currently. Ifwe don't have the water, you don't get your CO.
That's the fact.
But we're not talking about real-time planning. We're talking
about out-year planning, 10, 15 years where these models begin to
change, you know, in terms of the projection. You know, the
difference between BEBR medium and BEBR high is in the out years,
not necessarily in the three to five-year window. They're very similar.
It's that out-year, 15-year, 20-year which we need, because our
permits are usually 20-year permits. It takes us eight years to build a
water treatment plant and put additional capacity on.
So it's very important that these long projections of population
Page 215
July 26, 2005
are accurate to the demand that is depicted by our growth
management.
And as I said, our board -- your direction up to now to me was to
use high BEBR, because it has been more reflective of the near-term
and out-term growth that we've experienced here in Collier County.
And that's the reason we use it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think we need to reword that
paragraph, and I think I'll get after it as soon as this meeting is over.
And I believe the No.5 paragraph that says funding should be used for
CERP projects. I think I want to change the way that's worded. It
basically says that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Should be dedicated to something.
MR. MUDD: -- the state needs to have a way to audit the funds
to make sure that they're used for water suppliers in that process. And
I think we can get -- because CERP narrows and it focuses on one
water management district, and it might be a little bit too much of a
pointed finger. So I think we could soften that a little bit and still get
the point across.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hold on, I think I'm next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas is next.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think on the water issue, I have
some concerns also because of the fact that there are communities that
are pumping in excess of what they're permitted for, and I don't
understand how they get away with that, compared to what we have to
endure here through permitting.
And so I have some concerns, because I don't think it's done on a
fair basis at the present time. And I think that that's an issue that needs
to be addressed.
And I think also another issue to be addressed is that why can't
we pump more out of the Tamiami aquifer than we're pumping now,
while other communities can? And I've got concerns on that.
Page 216
July 26, 2005
Because what it's doing is it's putting an additional burden on our
taxpayers at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you see room for our
Growth Management Plan amendment to be responsible for--
responsive for the reactions of this and other bills?
MR. DeLONY: I think it's kind of -- again, I think I'll go back to
what I said to Commissioner Coyle earlier. I think that we choose the
race horse to measure the run of the race.
We have traditionally -- in my view, I mean, my experience here,
of course it's just three years -- have used our land use planning, which
talks to land use and densities associated with land use in terms of
population and uses to determine our in-state population and therefore
our demand for services, be they roads, EMS or water.
So again, I'm asking -- I don't know if you're asking specifically
for water.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, if we have a difference
between the state and how we do things and we can't get it changed,
we need to respond to it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. And that means changing
horses.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I don't know that, if I read it within the
intent that that is not potentially, you know, three, four years from that
from this legislation, maybe exactly where this legislation may lead
us.
I don't think it does it on its face here. And I only point this out to
you in terms of our concerns, staffs concerns. It's not, you know, our
recommendation that at this stage of where we are, in terms of my
read of the situation, that we should look at water supply in terms of
its floor, in terms of supporting the growth per the land use decisions,
as opposed to a ceiling to those decisions.
And that's the way we're set up here in Collier County, to my
Page 217
July 26, 2005
understanding. And that was the reason I asked that we consider this,
because it's more in line to our Growth Management Plan and in the
practices that we have currently in place here in the County. And that's
the reason we provide --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you're asking for guidance, I'll tell you
what my personal preference is, and that is to start using the water
supply as the limiting factor.
MR. DeLONY : Well, in the instant of concurrency, we do. In
the instant of concurrency, if we don't have the water, you don't get
your CO.
But see, that does not answer your question. The question is, is
that in the out years, you know, what's the limiter. And we've used
our land use as opposed to the demand generated by that land use.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, you have more?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think I'll talk to the staff
members.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That might be better.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, thank you very much.
Now, is there a -- well, I guess I'll wait till Commissioner Halas
gets back to ask if there's a motion. He should be involved in this
process.
MR. MUDD: So far, Commissioner, I'm rewording paragraph
four and paragraph five of that water section for public utilities.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay, to get it more in line where water is going to
be the controlling factor, the availability thereof, to make sure that we
put that down there.
If -- the other thing is we'll put a caveat in there to let folks know
that, you know, that same element, water, being a controlling factor
should be a controlling factor for everybody and not something that's
moved about because somebody has more representatives than
Page 218
July 26, 2005
somebody else does in the state. And we'll make that very -- and
make it so it gets out so it isn't moved around and it doesn't become a
brokerage type item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Good.
MR. MUDD: And I'll make sure that the CERP issues, that we
basically talk about the money should be used for potable water
suppliers, alternative water needs, and there should be some way that
the money is audited at the state level.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. And so you need approval
to send this forward with the modifications?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I'll get those modifications done
very quickly, and I'll make sure that Commissioner Henning gets a
good read, and if you're here tomorrow that you get a good read on
paragraphs four and five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Is there a -- Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Being that I was the one
who pulled it, I'd like to make a motion that we -- for approval, based
upon the changes that are taking place.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please sig -- do
we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
Page 219
July 26, 2005
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries 4-0, with Commissioner Halas
temporarily absent.
That brings us to 10(K) -- I'm sorry, break time. Okay, I'm sorry.
We'll take -- we're going to take a 10-minute break. And then -- yeah,
then we've got to get this done before 5:00.
(A recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic.
Item #10K
TO REJECT BID NO. 05-3824 FOR PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS
TO EAGLE LAKES COMMUNITY PARK - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mr. Mudd. We're going to 10(K)
now?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And that used to be Item 16(D)(9).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that was pulled by
Commissioner Henning.
MR. MUDD: No, that was Commissioner Fiala. And she
wanted to talk -- this was the item that I had on the change, the second
and third paragraphs.
What we basically want to do is we want to terminate the bid
because the bids we received were very much higher, 100 percent
higher than our estimates.
And then we also want the Board of County Commissioners,
besides rejecting the bid No. 053824 for Phase II improvements to
Eagle Lakes Community Park, to authorize the County Manager to
award a contract in an amount not to exceed $300,000 for construction
of the interactive water feature in the Commissioners' absence in
August.
Page 220
July 26, 2005
And Ms. Marla Ramsey, the director -- excuse me, the
Administrator for Public Services Division -- my apologies, ma'am --
will present.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, let me get right to the heart of
this so you don't have to bother to make a presentation.
You're going to -- because this bid was so much higher, I wanted
to know what things you're going to eliminate from the park.
MR. RAMSEY: Basically, Commissioner, we're going to split
this into two because of the funding sources. And what you're going
to get is what I need in order to build the interactive water feature,
which would include restroom alterations and sidewalk, as well as the
interactive water feature.
And then the tennis courts and the shelter and the maintenance
facility will come next year when we can re-budget some dollars
toward that project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are we still going to have -- there's not
even a person at this park yet. Are we going to have somebody there,
some kind of a person, an employee?
MR. RAMSEY: Commissioner, in your budget this year you
took off the unfunded request list an employee for Eagle Lakes, a
full-time employee. So along with the full-time maintenance people
who leave about 3:30 in the afternoon, you will also then have a
full-time recreation person there to help schedule events.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. I just wanted to make
sure we didn't lose that.
And then you say next year we're going to get the shelter. We
don't have a shelter yet there.
MR. RAMSEY: You have two shelters currently in the
playground area. The two shelters that we're looking to put on as part
of the master plan were over by the concession area, by the ball field
areas, so we'll look at bringing those in on the next fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So could you write that up for me,
Page 221
July 26, 2005
just so I can see it in writing, and give me a projected date? This park
has been on the bark burner, you know my frustrations, for so many
years, and I just hate to see it continually put aside and put aside when
I see other parks getting built. I'm happy that other parks are built,
don't get me wrong. It's just that I don't like to see ours put aside. So I
would like a timeline, please. I'm working with you, but I'm getting
impatient as well.
MR. RAMSEY: Very good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Now we go to 16 -- or 10(K).
MR. MUDD: That was 10(K).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We just did that.
MR. MUDD: That was 10(K). Commissioner, I need a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I've got my -- my agenda is labeled
incorrectly. But, okay.
MR. MUDD: Sixteen -- remember 16(C)(9), Commissioner
Henning withdrew that particular item. I mention it to you because
the -- Mr. DeLony had answered his questions, so he left it on the
consent agenda. I mentioned that when I did my thing and we crossed
it out, and then we went down to the next item --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we substituted this one for 10(K).
MR. MUDD: And then what we did is when Commissioner
Fiala said she wanted to pull 16(D)(9), I made it 10(K).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we have a motion for
approval?
MR. MUDD: I have no motion, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We should have, because Commissioner
Fiala is going to make one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve
and ask that a time line be sent to me which Marla just told me about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you want to second it also?
Page 222
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second to Commissioner
Fiala's motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning.
We have, how many, two speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three speakers. Do the three speakers
want to speak and talk us out of this, or do you support this park
approval?
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Elaine Hamilton.
MS. HAMILTON: I'm on the TDC topic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. She's not speaking on this one.
MR. MUDD: She's going to speak at 8(D).
MS. FILSON: We have no speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, thank you very much.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you very
much.
And that takes us to our time certain, then, Mr. Mudd?
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2005-43: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 92-60 RELATING TO TOURIST
Page 223
July 26, 2005
DEVELOPMENT TAXES, AS AMENDED, FOR THE INCREASE
OF 1 % TO THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
TAX TO BE DEDICATED 100% TO MARKETING,
ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION AND RELATED
LANGUAGE CHANGES - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that takes us to our time certain and that is
Item 8(D). This item to be heard at 5:00 p.m. We're actually two
minutes ahead of time.
A recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending
Ordinance No. 92-60, relating to the tourist development taxes as
amended for the increase of one percent to the Collier County tourist
development tax to be dedicated 100 percent to marketing, advertising
and promotion and related language changes.
And Mr. Jack Wert, your director of tourism, will present.
Commissioners, I will tell you just for the record that you need a
super majority vote in order to change the Ordinance, this tourism
Ordinance.
Mr. Wert?
MR. WERT: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Mr. Chairman, County
Commissioners.
Just very quickly, you've probably all seen that television
commercial of the guy that goes in and he's negotiating on a car loan
and he sets down his award from the middle school that he was the
debate champ.
Well, I'm not the debate champ, but I do have an award that I just
wanted to show you that we got today. And this is for our television
spot that has won a Telly award. And it's for commercials that run, not
nationally run commercials, but for the paradise coast television spot.
So just thought you'd like to see that. And that doesn't make me a
debate champ, but at least it says that our advertising is working and is
being certainly accepted by our peers.
Page 224
July 26, 2005
I know that it's been a long day today, and you have seen my
presentation. I gave it to you ahead head of time. I've just got a
couple of summary slides that I'd like to show you that kind of
outlines the overall proposal, and then if you do have some questions,
I certainly have some additional slides that may help.
The proposal that we are bringing before you, first of all, takes
nothing from the first two percent or the third percent for beaches and
inlets. Nothing is being taken away from that and nothing is being
taken away from the allocation to the museums.
The current funds that we have in Category B out of the first two
percent for advertising, promotion and our administrative costs, what
we are suggesting we retain in that portion are administrative costs
that we are projecting for next year at about 725,000, and that we
reimburse the emergency advertising fund. And we've not been able
to do this in the past, $750,000 this coming fiscal year, 2006, and an
additional 750,000 in '07, which will bring us up to a million and a
half dollars, which we feel and our budget office feels is where we
need to be for reserve for advertising our destination in an emergency
situation. And we certainly have seen with past storms that that's
important.
The remainder dollars in that first two percent of our present
promotion dollars, we are recommending that those funds at the end of
each fiscal year be allocated as follows: 66 percent to Category A
beach and inlet projects. That's new money going to the beaches and
inlets that they have not had before. It will be coming from what we
currently have in our advertising dollars. And 34 percent to beach
access projects.
So we are looking to the future knowing that we are going to
need additional dollars for both beach access and for our additional
beach and inlet projects. That's how we see that proposal being done.
The fourth percent would then be dedicated 100 percent to
advertising, public relations and promotion. And this is just a quick
Page 225
July 26, 2005
slide that shows you the first column where we are currently with the
three percent, based on our budget of $10 million, and what with the
proposed four percent, the increase of about a million dollars to the
Category A funds, and what the fourth percent, the $3.3 million will
increase our advertising promotion and marketing fund to 3.9 million.
This proposal, we've taken around the community,
Commissioners, as you have asked us to do, and the Coastal Advisory
Committee in June voted 6-1 to support it. The Naples Daily News, in
an editorial, supported it in June. The United Arts Council supported
it. Our Collier County Hotel and Lodging Association has supported
it. Our Tourist Development Council, a unanimous vote 6-0. The
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce just this week supported it, as
well as the Marco Island Chamber of Commerce.
So in summary, Commissioners, the tourism industry, and really
the business community in general, is looking to you for support of
this to help market our destination more effectively in the future.
And I'll answer questions, if you have them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One of the things that as--
you talked about the percentages in Category A beach and inlet
projects and beach and access projects. If we generate or if we bring a
lot more tourists in but they can't access the beach, we're going to have
a real, real, real problem. I mean, we have a problem as it is.
Is there a way that we can put more dollars into this beach access
project? They don't usually go boating, they don't usually need the
inlets, the tourists, but they certainly do need beach access. And with
so many hotels being built or, you know, cropping up, but they don't
have any beaches to claim as their own, we've got to provide more
access. And that's my main concern. But I'm sure it's the concern of
all of the Commissioners.
MR. WERT: And if I might, Mr. Chairman, just a quick note on
that. As you know, parks and recreation does have an allocation
Page 226
July 26, 2005
already in Category A and we have set aside those dollars for access
projects. And it fact, when you went through your workshop on
access, you looked at those five proj ects and gave them the authority
to go ahead. And they are going to be bonding some of that additional
money that they have in that Category A already for those projects.
We think that the addition of what we are -- in this case, about
just next year, $340,000, a like amount the following year in those
beach access projects is added money they didn't think that they had.
And I think it will enhance their ability to do even more in the beach
access area. So I hope we're adequately looking at that area.
The other side of it is the beach inlet projects are all costing
more. We just got the bid on the major re-nourishment. That's much
higher than we thought it was going to be. DEP continues to put some
really tough constraints on us in trying to get these permits for all the
beach projects. Whenever we do an inlet project, there's always
something new that they throw in that costs us money, you know, all
the monitoring and so forth that we have to do. So everything is
costing an awful lot more.
So I think we definitely need to think about both sides of our
beach projects and also access. And this is a new source of revenue
that they have not had before, and I think will help in the future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you explain what the $725,000
is? Is this your salary, or what?
MR. WERT: Don't I wish. No, our administrative costs,
Commissioner, are a combination of things. They are salaries. They're
also rent. They are all the office expenses. They would be --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does this entail advertising?
MR. WERT: No, no. These are administrative costs only.
750,000 is the emergency advertising fund. I don't want to confuse
those two.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 725.
Page 227
July 26, 2005
MR. WERT: 725 is administrative costs to run the tourist
development council office and for staff and also for rent for all the
office supplies, all the things that are required to run our office.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Isn't this an item that's on the
budget?
MR. WERT: Oh, yes, yes, this is a budgeted item. All we're
suggesting --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Budgeted from the regular County
Manager's budget?
MR. MUDD: It's out ofTDC dollars.
MR. WERT: Yeah, it's strictly out ofTDC dollars, current
dollars.
MR. MUDD: Jack's entire --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My understanding on this when we
were negotiating this fourth cent was basically that any funds that
were not being used for beach re-nourishment and so on, that was
going to be pushed down on the fourth cent. Am I right or am I
wrong?
MR. WERT: When we ran those numbers, Commissioner, what
that will do, if all of our administrative costs and reimbursing the
emergency advertising fund come out of the new fourth cent, we won't
be any better off than we are right now. We won't have any more
marketing dollars than we have now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not talking about the 750
emergency funds. I'm talking about the 725,000 operational funds.
MR. WERT: 725,000 has always been the proposal that that
would continue to come out of our existing funds, and that's exactly
how it was presented to the lodging industry and that's what they felt it
was important that we didn't lose those administrative funds, that it
still came out of our current funds.
As it is, you know, we're giving up a good portion of what we
have to beach projects that -- and that money has always been in the
Page 228
July 26, 2005
marketing side before. So we're really trying to help everybody here
by this proposal.
It just -- if we take our administrative costs out of the new fourth
cent, which is strictly dedicated for marketing and advertising, not for
administrative costs, we're going to have a difficult time. We really
aren't going to be much better off than we are now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why is that? Because you're going
to have $3 million or -- less the $725,000.
MR. WERT: 725 plus all the other expenses.
Let me see if I can find a slide that will help you understand that,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said you're really not going to
be better off than you are right now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifhe transferred the costs from one to
the other, the $750,000.
MR. MUDD: Ready, Jeff?
MR. WERT: Let's just look at this slide for a second. This isn't
exactly what you just said, but this is -- if you take the four percent,
the fourth percent, which will generate $3.3 million, and you
reimburse -- or you take all the expenses out, that's where you end up.
Actually, you could add to that advertising, PR and promotion
another 750,000. What that would mean, we'd have a budget of$1.8
million for advertising. It's 1.1 now. So we would only be gaining
about $750,000 for all of this. That really isn't going to help us at all
become competitive. We need all of that new fourth percent to
effectively market the destination.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's our projected cost for beach
re- nourishment?
MR. WERT: That proj ect right now is coming in at --
MR. MUDD: 24 million.
MR. WERT: -- $24 million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it was projected at about 18?
Page 229
July 26, 2005
MR. WERT: About 18. Correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Mr. Wert, when I was
talking to you earlier, I was asking for comparisons. It gets confusing
when you're talking about the three cents and the one extra cent and
then a percentage of the first cent and a percentage of the second two
cents. It's very difficult to follow.
Could you make that chart up for me that would compare the first
three cents, where it is today, where it will be after we change it and
where it would be in two years?
MR. WERT: Yes. Let me just pull that one up for you,
Commissioner.
MR. MUDD: Hey, Jeff, may I help you? Put the visualizer on.
MR. WERT: This one is -- yeah, that one really does tell it. I
can show it two ways here.
MR. MUDD: Okay, let's do the first one.
MR. WERT: That's the current on the $10 million budget.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a little bit slower so we can
follow it.
MR. MUDD: Okay, there's the first one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the 1.8? Explain what the
1.8 is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's museums. It's color coded just
below it. Here.
MR. MUDD: Right now that pie is broken down at $6.6 million
for beaches and inlets. And along with that, you have $2 million going
to beach access of that 6.6 million.
The maroon color is advertising, an admin., and that's basically
Jack's budget.
And then the other category is 1.8, and that goes to museums,
County and other museums.
Page 230
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you're saying that we already
have beach access under the --
MR. MUDD: 6.6 million? Yes, sir, you have 2 million in there.
MR. WERT: Two million of that is beach access already.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's currently. How does it
change?
MR. MUDD: Then it goes to -- we're going up to the 2006 four
cent, $13.4 million budget.
Mr. Wert, explain it, please.
MR. WERT: And that would increase your beach funds to $7.6
million. The administrative costs -- excuse me, the advertising and
promotion costs at 3.9 million.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But that's out of the fourth cent.
I'm still trying to see the original three cents, how that changes. We
already know what --
MR. WERT: Three cents won't change a bit. Three cents doesn't
change a bit, except that beaches get another million dollars. That's
what happens. Nothing else changes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Beaches get another million dollars
with the current -- what we have currently?
MR. WERT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What he's talking about beaches
is beach re-nourishment, not--
MR. WERT: Beach re-nourishment and beach access. It would
be split with 660,000 to beach and inlets and 340,000 to access.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would have appreciated just
the three cents to be able to make a real comparison. I think it's
absolutely wonderful we have a full penny dedicated for the industry,
but I'm having a hard time understanding the original three percent
and how that changes.
And after two years when we satisfy the reserve funds, then we
have excess funds coming in to be able to use?
Page 23 1
July 26, 2005
MR. WERT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And how is that divided up, the
extra --
MR. WERT: Same way. Same way. It would go 66 percent to
beach and re-nourishment projects and 34 percent to access, beach
access projects. So that will continue to grow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So just going for the beach
access part of the whole thing, if you separate that from everything,
what do we have now and what will we have in a couple of years?
MR. WERT: We have two million set aside now. Next year, we
will have an additional $340,000. So we have --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is just for beach access?
MR. WERT: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Three million we got, what, one
year, or is this a number of years we've been building --
MR. MUDD: Sir, if you take a look at the slide where it says
$6.6 million, you're basically saying there's about $2 million -- a little
over $2 million of that 6.6 going in there.
When it comes down and it's $7.6 million, when it's the fourth
penny, when you come down on that -- on your pie chart where it's
7.6, your beach access goes up to $2.5 million.
So there's an increase in beach access between the third penny
and the fourth penny by about a half million dollars for beach access.
And there's about a half million dollar increase in there for beach re-
nourishment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's wonderful. But the only
thing that's missing is that one I asked for a couple of days ago is the
one there showing the three cents only so I could really make a
comparison for apples to apples. I see that fourth cent in there but it
kind of skews what I'm looking for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: While we have the charts up
Page 232
July 26, 2005
there, Ron Pennington can verify this. The yellow wasn't there. The
allocation was off-season promotion and beach re-nourishment. And
over the years the Board of Commissioners have dwindled (sic) down
on the beach -- or the promotion of it. And so -- and keep in mind,
Commissioners, through advertising promotion of off-season, all boats
will rise. Each one of the categories will rise and we'll have more
monies for access, re-nourishment and museum.
Jack has proven when you give him extra money, you know, he
sprinkles his magic on it. So just keep in mind that hopefully we'll see
some -- we will see some efforts or some desert with our efforts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The 750,000 that's going to be used
to replenish the emergency fund, does -- when that gets paid off, is
there money from that 750,000 that goes to advertising, too?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. That money would go into beach access
and beach re-nourishment. And you notice from 2006 in this
particular chart we're at $7.6 million for beach access and beach re-
nourishment, that it increases some $779,000 to $8.3 million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How come we got a big increase in
advertising of -- wait a minute, let's go back -- yeah, advertising where
we end up in 2008 where it's $4 million already?
MR. MUDD: Well, I believe Jack's showing you some growth
and revenue, too, sir, as it goes along. Because he is successful in his
projections. He didn't put this in present value.
MR. WERT: Yeah, it was a 5 percent growth. We've been
averaging 3.5 percent growth, and we think that 5 percent is -- with
the additional promotion is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then your $725,000, how
much is that going to increase each year?
MR. WERT: What we have done, Commissioner, is we have put
a cap on those administrative costs. So the percentage of what it is to
our total budget now, what administrative costs are to total budget,
Page 233
July 26, 2005
will not increase beyond that.
So we will keep our administrative costs within that same
percentage, which was the indication that the Tourist Development
Council wanted to see as well. So we have built that into the
Ordinance so that our administrative costs will stay in line with -- if
our revenue is going up 5 percent, you know our expenses are going to
go up some. We couldn't go up any more than that 5 percent
expansIon In our revenue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're going to have basically a
CPI index into your system; is that what you're saying?
MR. WERT: As our revenue goes up, so would the amount of
money that advertising gets --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're not going to have a cap,
it's going to be whatever it floats to?
MR. WERT: Within that percentage, that's correct. And I think
it's important, Commissioner, to remember, that if you have that much
more people coming, you've got that much more advertising and
promotion you're doing, it's going to take eventually some additional
staff to handle that. It's going to take more cost to fulfill all those
requests for information. The advertising agency of course would
have additional dollars to spend. So all those administrative costs will
go up. But we're trying to keep them in line with just the growth that
we have in our revenue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: To try to be a bit more specific,
Commissioner Halas, let -- the current allocation is 32 percent to
administrative costs? That percentage cannot increase. In other
words, if the total amount of money in the first three pennies
increases, Jack will never be able to get more than 32 percent of it. So
that it will -- there will always be a share going to the other categories
as it increases.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you index that back so I can
see the slide on the top to see where we are in relationship with the
Page 234
July 26, 2005
museums? Okay -- whoops, right here. One point eight. And now go
back down. And we're looking at two million. Doesn't increase that
quickly compared to the rest.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, one of the things we got to make
sure that we do, okay, especially in -- we have -- there's a certain
neighboring County, okay, and I won't mention the name, that has a
rather large budget for advertisement and staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, it's Hendry.
MR. MUDD: And it consumes over 50 percent of the total TDC
outlay. And so there's no monies that come basically to the
community for beach re-nourishment. And in our piece that goes to
some utility from our TDCs is more, even though we collect less TDC
dollars. So that's one of the things that you really got to worry about.
Because the next thing you know, you'll have a permanent office in
Berlin, a permanent office in London. And it -- we're definitely
talking about Hendry County, sir. And so you have to worry about
that. And I worry about that all the time, Mr. Wert, to make sure that
he's got the smallest staff possible to bring back the return on
investment to Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With $725,000, he's got to have
some more offices someplace.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those are his trips to Europe that eat up
all that money.
MR. MUDD: Sir, but what I will do is I will have Mr. Wert
itemize that $745,000 for you.
MR. WERT: I will. I'd be happy to do that for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I wanted to know what are the
results this summer on your advertising so far?
MR. WERT: See if I can pull that up for you, Commissioner.
Here they are. Okay. This is -- this springtime -- this is our
campaign between April 15 -- excuse me, April 1 st and June 15th.
Page 235
July 26, 2005
And you can see that our requests for information have tripled over
last year between -- there were 33,800 this year, over 10,390 last year.
Our newspapers -- this is inquiries from people who saw our ad in a
newspaper and called, or came to the website for information. That
has over doubled.
The website is really doing well. These are actual unique visitors
to the site. That's going well.
Television is really what has increased a great deal from just
right about 600 inquiries last year during that same time period to
almost 10,000. And our magazine inquiries are up as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Excuse me, I didn't mean to interrupt.
This is an indicator, but it really doesn't tell anybody how many more
visitors we're getting here.
MR. WERT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why can't we get actual numbers of
people who are visiting and staying overnight in our hotels? I mean,
they're collecting the taxes for it, certainly they can tell us how many
people that we're attracting here.
MR. WERT: We actually do that. And let me just show you --
I'm going the wrong way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You showed the Miami and the
Palm Beach advertising, but you were going to touch on untapped
markets. Chicago was one of them.
MR. WERT: And that's where that increase in television has
really come from. That television was what we call per inquiry
television. It was in the Long Island, N ew York area. And it is off the
chart in inquiries. So that has helped.
The other thing that it has done is the visitation from the
marketing we're doing in Chicago is now increasing the amount of
expenditures that people have. They're coming a further distance,
they're staying a little longer than our Florida visitors do, and so we're
seeing an increase in the actual expenditures that people have in the
Page 236
July 26, 2005
marketplace.
And I just wanted to quickly show you. This is how we measure
our advertising effectiveness and how we're doing. Because inquiries
are one thing, but it's how many people as, Mr. Chairman, you said.
On a monthly basis we get an occupancy report that shows what
average occupancy is across the area, the average daily rate, how
many people actually came and what their spending levels were. That
lags behind about 45 days before we actually see that, but every
month we see that.
We also then on a seasonal --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When do we get to see that?
MR. WERT: I'll bring it to you every month, if you would like
to see it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be good. Comparative
figures, month to month, year to year, comparable quarters, things like
that.
MR. WERT: I'd be happy to do it. Because we actually do it a
couple of times a year, too, on the seasonal basis. We do it for the
season, and then we do it again for what we call off-season, the April
to November time frame, which we're constantly measuring right now.
And you can see just on this slide the things we're looking at.
We ask them things like what their purpose of the trip was, their
length of stay, their spending patterns. We ask them how they spend
their vacation dollars. We ask them if they remember a message about
Naples, Marco Island, Everglades area. We ask them the kinds of
activities they are going to do or are planning to do or have done while
they've been in the area. So we do that all the time.
We then have an annual study and we bring that back to you
when we do that joint workshop in December every year with the
TDC and the County commission.
And then also we do a conversion study. And Collegis Research
is working on this right now for last year. What they do is they go
Page 237
July 26, 2005
back and they call a certain percentage of people who called or wrote
for information. They call them on the phone or they contact them by
the Internet and they find out, did you come, and if you did, how
many days did you stay, what did you spend, what were your
activities, and so forth. So we're able to build then how many people
that wanted information actually came and spent money in our
community. So we do that on an annual basis, and we'll be happy to
bring that back -- perhaps on a quarterly basis might be good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need that information.
MR. WERT: All right, I'll be happy to bring that back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now we have three speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Why don't we call the first
speaker.
MS. FILSON: The first one is Elaine Hamilton. She'll be
followed by George Rasley.
MS. HAMILTON: Good evening, Commissioners. Elaine
Hamilton, executive director of United Arts Council, here to speak on
behalf of the proposed increase.
I guess two points we would like to make in supporting this
proposal. First goes back to a comment made by Commissioner
Henning earlier, is that we support it, provided this one percent is
devoted to out-of-season advertising. We think it's important to
increase tourism during that period of time, which goes back to the
lack of beach access, especially during season.
And the other point is that we would hope we would encourage
more information about the cultural community here in Collier County
in that advertising.
And that's purely bottom line for us. I'd like to share with you
some statistics that cultural tourists do spend more. In fact, a national
average they spend $631 per trip versus 457 per trip of normal
tourists, which is about 38 percent more. They also stay in the hotel
Page 238
July 26, 2005
rooms longer. They stay an average of 5.1 nights, where other tourists
stay just 3.4 nights. Those same statistics are -- those statistics are
very similar to what the Florida research has shown.
So I think here in Collier County we're positioned with all the
wonderful publicity we've received recently about our arts and cultural
community to be able to maximize that and really promote something
that makes us different from all the other beach and golf communities
in Florida. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is George Rasley. He'll be
followed by your final speaker, Ron Pennington.
MR. RASLEY: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
My name's George Rasley. I'm here on behalf of the Greater Naples
Chamber of Commerce and our 1,700 and some odd members and
their 65,000 plus employees.
And I wanted to second all the information that Jack shared with
you, but also to share with you some of the deliberations that our
organization had as we came into this.
. There was a lot of discussion about taxes and policy and the
economic impact and so on and so forth. But there's something that's
really somewhat counterintuitive about our tourism industry that I
think is important for you all to remember, which is that there is a
favorable economic impact not only in wages paid by the industry to
employees and money spent, we are also exporting to tourists about 20
percent of our tax revenues. In other words, we're collecting 20
percent more and so our full-time residents receive a benefit in either
lower taxes or more services because we have people coming here
from out of the community spending money, paying taxes and
consuming fewer services.
So I want to leave you with that somewhat counterintuitive
thought, that even though sometimes traffic gets a little dense during
season, we're actually receiving a substantial benefit in taxes paid by
Page 239
July 26, 2005
our tourists.
So thank you for your consideration of this Ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ron Pennington. And I
received two other speaker slips. Lou Vlasho will follow Mr.
Pennington.
MR. PENNINGTON: Good afternoon, or evening,
Commissioners, just about. Ron Pennington, Chairman of your
Coastal Advisory Committee.
I've appeared before you a number of times in the past year or
two opposing things that Mr. Wert was here asking for, because in all
those instances I felt there was a negative impact on our beach
programs.
This time, I and the Coastal Advisory Committee are very
supportive of the additional one cent to be used for tourism marketing
and such.
Our reasons are very simple, really. We think if there's enough
money made available for tourism, then our beach money will not be
under attack all the time. So it's purely to protect that.
Now, with the CAC, when we gave consideration to this, we did
not really discuss what would happen with the portion of the present
two cents that goes for tourism. And I'll try to break that down maybe
a little differently for Commissioner Coletta. Maybe a bit more
specific.
Of that original two cents, back when it was 60 percent for
beaches and 40 percent divided between tourism, which was 25
percent of it and 15 percent went for projects kind of things to enhance
tourism. And then that was when we added a third cent for the
beaches and that split was changed to where out of the original two
cents then 50 percent of it went to the beaches, we dropped off 10.
And then the museums were later brought in and they took over the
vat that had been originally going for special project types of things.
Page 240
July 26, 2005
But it left then for tourism out of the two cents 23 and a fraction
percentage of that, and with 26 and a fraction going to the museums.
That 23 percent plus out of what we presently are proj ecting of
the 10 plus million per year now that we have achieved, of that then
there would be approximately 1.6 million that would go to -- in the
tourism account.
So if we take that 1.6 and we subtract out seven and a quarter for
admin. and 750 to make up for the emergency reserves, that's about a
million and a half, almost. So it doesn't leave too much out of that 1.6
to go to the beach.
Already?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Time flies when you're getting old.
MR. PENNINGTON: I guess that -- if I may, though, add a
point. We did not discuss this at the CAC at that time because that
was before we had bids in on beach re-nourishment. We got the bid
in. To renourish our beaches is going to cost us over $20 million just
for bringing sand in and putting it on the beaches. We're about $6
million short.
So I would request of the board then to look as to how much you
could enhance our beach area. We're out here scratching to find the
funds to cover this. It will be coming before you for your contract
award first meeting in September. And we need all the help we can
get to get that money put together. So I would ask that you give
further consideration to that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks, Ron.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lou Vlasho. He'll be
followed by Jim Gunderson.
MR. VLASHO: Good evening, Commissioners. Lou Vlasho,
6790 Pelican Bay Boulevard. I ALSO happen to be chairman of the
Greater Naples Better Government Committee and a member of the
Chamber of Commerce board, and in the hospitality industry.
Over the last several weeks, we've had the opportunity, and I
Page 241
July 26, 2005
personally, to work with Mr. Wert and go through all of those 40 or 50
slides. Because we went into this thing initially saying what is this all
about and what will it do.
Based on that review, the chamber came out and said -- endorses
you moving forward on this. There is a need. There is a need for
marketing in the off-season. And a need for dollars for the beaches.
This really accomplishes all those things for you. I'm not going
to give you statistics on who comes. We see the results of the
marketing every day on the streets of Fifth Avenue, in the off-season,
especially, and on Marco Island in the off-season. These dollars are
needed to -- you have to remember, we build facilities just like you for
the peak. And they get awful lonely in the off-season. So we would
like to see you adopt this.
They say in any field, business, if you're not going forward and
standing still, you're really going backwards. And I think the slides
that we had the opportunity to review indicate the results that other
communities are achieving.
So we recommend adoption and we'd like to see you move
forward with it. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Jim Gunderson.
MR. GUNDERSON: Good afternoon. Well, Jim Gunderson, the
Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club. And I'm about to be the fly in the
ointment. So it's -- we are not in favor of the tax increase. And we
have -- for four primary reasons.
First of all, brushing aside the whole issue of -- to us the museum
funding to the tune of $1.8 million is wrong. When the bed tax was
adopted in 1992 and then later ratified in 1996 when a third penny was
added, you know, the whole concept of the museum funding was not
part of any of those discussions. It now represents 18 percent of the
total bed tax revenues collected, compared to 16 percent for
advertising and promotion. And not to at least give this topic a little
bit of greater consideration at this time to me is -- and to us is rather
Page 242
July 26, 2005
unbelievable.
The second reason is we're not convinced that establishing a
permanent year-round tax increase to generate additional funds to
throw at the summers, weekend leisure market is the answer.
Under the proposal shown today, only five percent of the total
marketing budget will be spent on the group segments. For many of
us, the groups and meetings segment represents an approximate range
of 40 to 65 percent of our annual room nights. That is the segment
that continues to lag, and that is the segment where I have the greatest
concern for this tax impact.
The leisure traveler is definitely on the rebound. And not just
here, but throughout the entire country.
We in our business have in fact cut back on some of the
advertising because the demand has been so strong.
I'm concerned that the fundamental lack of understanding of the
potential impact of this tax in moving us into the upper taxing tier of
counties within Florida is a concern.
Third reason is we're not convinced that the stated goals -- that --
not convinced that the stated goals do not warrant a one percent
year-round tax increase, and therefore, when these goals are achieved,
the justification cycle will be complete, with minimal overall support
given to our industry. By that I mean the stated overall goals
represent a one percent increase in occupancy in the off-season
months.
It also indicates that there is a goal to increase inquiries to the
paradise coast.com, as well as phone inquiries by 10 percent and
phone call on the 800 number by three percent. Frankly, that's nothing.
I mean, frankly, one percent occupancy in the off-season generated
with an additional million dollars plus going towards advertising and
promotion, it simply doesn't justify in our way of thinking a
year-round tax increase.
And the fourth reason really then boils down to trust. Having
Page 243
July 26, 2005
been involved in this since 1992, it -- we've certainly seen, you know,
the use and misuse of these funds and are still concerned that even
though it was as well intended as it was back in the early Nineties, the
mid Nineties, it's -- and as clear and as well organized and as thought
through as it was then, there was abuse. And there's some serious
concern that we have that that is going to -- the potential for that is
still there.
So, you know, in conclusion, I just -- you know, I already know
what you're going to do. I'm sad and I'm disappointed, you know, but I
-- I really as a business, you know, we just felt that we couldn't just
sort of stand by and let this happen without at least suggesting that not
everybody is on board this -- on this train.
And I'm sorry to see this is going to happen, but it's coming like a
tidal wave, I can see it. So I wish you all the best of luck with it.
Thank you for listening.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning. Mr. Wert, the--
if I remember right, the Vanderbilt Beach parking deck came in
higher, and I think because of that, the Board of Commissioners
decided to bond the tourist tax --
MR. WERT: That's correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to pay for that. Can we do
that to address the concerns of this re-nourishment project, is bond the
tourist tax to pay for that increased cost that wasn't anticipated?
MR. WERT: I'll answer it and perhaps we can have Mr.
Smykowski or the County Manager have a couple of further
comments.
F or the most part they don't -- in the bond market, they don't like
to bond sand. They want something much more substantial than that.
So it's very difficult to get that kind of financing. It certainly might be
possible. But because you're paying for this over -- we pretty much
got -- you know, we got big reserves to pay for most of that.
Page 244
July 26, 2005
There's some value engineering things that Gary McAlpin is
going to do related to that beach re-nourishment project to bring some
of those costs more in line with what we had budgeted.
We did just hear that Florida Department of Environmental
Protection is going to have some additional dollars that we think will
help offset, and we can offset 30 cents on the dollar from some state
funds, so that's going to help us as well. So I think -- and I know Ron
Pennington has been working with Gary to see how we can do that.
So we're going to get pretty close to the budgeted number. We'll still
be over some. But I don't see us bonding those dollars at this time. I
just don't think it's going to fly in the bond market.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're going to come back when
this project comes forward for approval with all kinds of options,
okay, as we work through --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so we're preparing for
that?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we're working on that.
MR. WERT: Yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I heard Commissioner Fiala's
concerns about allocating money for beach access. And I agree. I
mean, we've been wrestling with the issue of where do we get the
funds for more beach access.
And I think that we have the community on board on that. And I
know that our emphasis is on beach re-nourishment. And I just want
to float out to the Commissioners, after -- on our executive summary,
it says the 66 percent for inlet beach and projects on 34, can we split
the baby and do a 50/50, and if there's enough support on the board,
Commissioners, to do that, if there is a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to see you do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm interested in what you're
saying. Say it one more time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, on your executive
Page 245
July 26, 2005
summary, Commissioner, look on the first page on the bottom. See
where it says the asterisk, it says 66 percent beaches and inlet --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and then do 50/50.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I could back you on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifwe go that way, then we're going
to be in a bigger hole for finding funds, possibly, for beach re-
nourishment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's ask the County
Manager if he has any concerns about the proposal I'm throwing out.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I have -- I have a little bit of
concern because of the price of the major re-nourishment came in $6
million over budget. We're looking at all the different options to see
what we can get as far as grants. Not that we didn't look at grants
before, but now it's another phone call that says I know you want to do
this, but could you help us a little bit more and here are the reasons
why.
One of the things that we haven't done very well in the past, and
I've talked to Mr. Pennington and Gary McAlpin, who's our beach re-
nourishment -- or excuse me, who's our beach -- yeah, beach re-
nourishment, inlet person manager in the County, is we don't do a very
good job with inlet management. We've done Wiggins Pass numerous
times. You know, what do you do with Doctors Pass when you do get
the Corps money, how does that work out? What do you do up at
Clam Pass now that you've got sand that's protruding all the way
across the inlet where the boats can't get out. Now, I understand that
that's not a navigable waterway, but it has been in the past. And it's
very difficult to tell those people at Seagate that have docks in the
back of their yard that it isn't a navigable waterway.
But all that said, you know, what do you do -- yes, sir, there are
boat docks, I'll show you where they are, if you'd like. So when you
Page 246
July 26, 2005
take a look at that, what are you going to do at beach inlet.
And that was one of the things that we haven't done a good job in
Collier County. And we were coming forth with a plan.
So I would say, I do have some concerns on the beach re-
nourishment side of the house as far as dollars are concerned, as well
as beach access issues. I mean, you know, it's like the egg and the
chicken or the horse and the wagon. Which came first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how about if we do --
keep this allocation. Your concerns are gone, yes or no?
MR. MUDD: Not totally, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we still have a problem.
How about if we keep this allocation for two years and then after two
years go to 50/50 split.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, or you tell the staff to come back in a
two-year period of time to reexamine this particular issue, and you
want --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's the best way to do it.
MR. MUDD: You want us to come back and examine that
percentage to see how it's working?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would go along with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that makes more sense, because
that gives you the opportunity to take a look at actual experience and
then make some decision rather than locking it in right now.
But can I throw out something for your consideration? The--
you know, when you don't have a lot of advertising money,
emergency reserves are important to help you recover from a period
when you've had some hurricanes, and you need to advertise more to
attract people back here. And that's what Jack is doing now with the
money he's been given from the emergency reserve funds. But he's
going to get $2.3 million more in advertising money with this fourth
cent tax.
Therefore, $750,000 or so in emergency reserves will not be all
Page 247
July 26, 2005
that important, because he can budget his expenditures in a way that
will offset any potential catastrophic circumstances.
So rather than trying to recover the entire $1.5 million of reserves
in two years, let's spread that over three or four years and then that lets
Jack replenish his reserves but at the same time leaves several
hundreds of thousands of dollars each year available not only for
beach access but for beach re-nourishment. And that will help
mitigate the problem without changing the fundamentals of this
agreement. There's no reason to try to get it all back in two years, as I
see it, quite frankly.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I can't support that
personally, just because the historical information on the allocation of
it. It's more and more of the allocation you're taking away from the
original intent.
And I'd just much rather stick to the original proposal by staff
that was supported by the TDC unanimously and revisit this issue in
another two years and see where we're at with the funding. And we
can also direct them to come back earlier, if need be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Maybe I didn't describe what I was
saying, but I would be interested in understanding how you feel that
what I suggested was a diversion of funds from the intended purpose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You see, they're getting existing
out of that third, you're getting what is it, 40 percent?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 32 percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 32 percent.
MR. WERT: Well, currently 23 percent of the first two percent
is going to marketing and advertising. And no dollars are -- we don't
have a way to replenish the emergency fund currently at all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. It's just more -- taking
more and more away from the original intent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute.
Page 248
July 26, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The original intent was for advertising
and beach re-nourishment--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and so all that you would be doing is
just slowing down the reimbursement of a reserve fund where the
money is just going to sit there unless there is a catastrophe and letting
it be used for beach re-nourishment or beach access. So you're not
taking it away from any original intent. And as a matter of fact, you're
not taking it away at all, you're merely reimbursing your reserves
more slowly, and that's all.
And since you've got well over a million dollars more than you
have under this current circumstance, it is less important that you have
that reserve more quickly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Unless you have a problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, even if you do, if you had a
problem of the same magnitude as we had this past year, Jack has got
what, $750,000 to spend on it, and you seem to be doing fairly well
with it.
MR. WERT: We've got 500,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, $500,000 to spend on it. Well,
you're going to have well over a million dollars or more -- well, $2.3
million more next year to spend on it. So it will be less of a problem
for you, because you will have more overall dollars for advertising.
MR. WERT: I think, if I could, Mr. Chairman, just for a second.
The scenario could work out this way, however. The additional
dollars are going to be allocated for the most part for marketing,
advertising, additional promotion, and that's going to be spread out __
instead of just advertising now, we can afford to start April 15th, we
run out of money in June.
The additional dollars are going to give us several opportunities.
One is to advertise into the fall, which definitely is going to help more
visitation.
Page 249
July 26, 2005
And the second thing is, it enables us to advertise more out of the
State of Florida, so that we have new markets like Chicago this year,
where we're getting much better, higher spending than we were from
Floridians.
So if that is the case and we have a hurricane, we're going to have
to back off some of that advertising back and use those current dollars
to payoff emergency, if you will, advertising. And then we're going
to shortchange, because we won't have enough in reserves, emergency
reserves, we'll be shortchanging that advertising campaign and we're
going to run out of --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you couldn't be worse off than you
were this year because you've got twice as much money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you're taxing more and
getting little, less than what has been proposed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not really. Okay, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I --let me get this straight.
The proposal that Commissioner Coyle has put on the table here for
discussion, instead of replenishing the emergency funds in two years
as it's explained to us in our packet, he is saying why don't we take
and use this over a three-year period and those funds that were __
instead of using it on a two-year basis, on a three-year basis, then we
can take additional funding and put that into the two categories of
beach access and of beach parking; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Beach re-nourishment.
MR. WERT: Re-nourishment and access, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So is that going to be -- would that
be a problem if we did incur a storm where we took an additional year
and you needed to draw on those funds? What do we have currently
left in the kitty for emergency funds?
MR. WERT: Less than $100,000. We have spent it down over
the last two and a half, three years, really, from -- we were right at
$900,000. We're now less than 100,000 in that emergency advertising
Page 250
-..-..-".' P' J .....^.....-.,-
July 26, 2005
fund. So right now if we had a storm, we're really in trouble.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you think that if we tried to
stretch an additional year that it would cause you due hardship?
MR. WERT: I think it will be difficult, but we certainly could
live with it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we could put those monies
that we save to address the two issues that we discussed earlier then; is
that correct?
MR. WERT: I missed that, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The beach inlet projects and beach
re- nourishment.
MR. WERT: Yes, that money would be split in the current -- as
we have it written now.
So if I understand it, Commissioner Coyle, it would be $500,000
a year over three years to replenish the emergency advertising fund
instead of 750.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, whatever people think --
MR. WERT: Up to a million and a half is what our goal is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. One of the
things I can tell you, Jack, is that we've always been friendly to the
tourist industry, and if we ever got with our backs against the wall, I'm
sure we would come up with something. If it wasn't some sort of
bonding to be able to make sure the money is there, we would
probably borrow it from our own reserves and then replace it later. I
can assure you, I, for one, Commissioner, wouldn't let the industry
hang out on a limb.
When that time does come, we have never failed to come forward
and I wouldn't ever fail in the future.
We're just trying to make these dollars go as far as possible to
make it work. I mean, beachfront property now, to be able to buy
something for access is just so unreasonably expensive. It's going to
Page 251
July 26, 2005
take years of accumulations of cash just to buy one piece of property.
MR. WERT: And I appreciate that. And I know that the
commission would come to our aid if we needed to. I would just like
not to have to come back so often. That's the reason I'm trying to do it
this way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we've just about beat this horse to
death.
Commissioner Henning, I'd like to get to a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. Let me just say that we
brought this issue up about supporting the emergency fund and we
didn't take it out of the reserves, we took it out of your budget.
MR. WERT: Yes, sir, we did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so I'm not sure if we're
really supporting the tourism industry or not. I mean, I can't see it.
There was a proposal to take it out of general fund money. It
didn't get any support.
I'm going to make a motion to support the recommendations by
staff and the TDC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, the motion dies for lack of a
second.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to get a little more
information from the Chamber of Commerce. If they could give me
some additional information. I was concerned about the gentleman
who represents the Beach Hotel saying that he didn't think that we
were getting our biggest bang for our buck.
Could you give me some figures or do you have figures available
in regards to that we are getting -- with regards to additional
advertising, that it is a reflection of what's happening here, off-season
here in Collier County?
Page 252
July 26, 2005
MR. RASLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. The best numbers
that you would have available to confirm that would be through your
-- through Jack's numbers that he generates, and that he -- and I'm not
sure which slide that was that you showed, Jack. But he gave you a
list of all the things that -- the information that they collect. And they
do that on a monthly basis. So that would be the best number as far as
whether or not you're getting an increase.
And we believe that we are. In fact, statewide in the first quarter,
there was about an 11 percent increase. I don't know right now
tonight what that number is for Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm more or less interested in
what's transpiring here in Collier County to make sure --
MR. RASLEY: Right. I think Jack has those numbers. They
may be lagging by a month or two because of the data collection, but
that's the best place to get them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WERT: Commissioner, the slide I just put up there shows
our return on investment. It goes back, looking at last year when we
invested an additional $400,000 -- excuse me, $300,000 in additional
advertising that was targeted in Palm Beach and Miami. And you can
see that just from that advertising campaign, we saw new spending in
our community from new visitors that were brought here specifically,
they told us your advertising brought me here, they spent $5.8 million
in our community.
That's a return ofa little over $19. For every dollar that we
invested in advertising, a new visitor came here and spent $19.
We also got some repeat visitors from that as well. And you can
see in the next columns we showed what we're doing this summer and
what kind of return on investment -- and as I said earlier, because
we're getting some Chicago visitors now, that return on investment is
a little over $20.
So I think we're getting a really good return on the investment of
Page 253
July 26, 2005
the advertising dollars. And I think if you look at column three, that's
what we're anticipating in 2006 we'll be able to do. We're going to get
a lot more visitation in the summer months, and these folks are going
to be spending money in our community.
And I think the other important thing is, look down at the two
lower lines, especially the sales tax revenue line, those are sales tax
dollars collected strictly from visitors coming to our community.
That's not our residents, that's visitors, new dollars that are being
collected from all of our visitors. That helps us, obviously, pay for
stuff here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Jack, do you think that any of these
figures are kind of misconstrued because of the two hurricanes that hit
the east coast in the Palm Beach area, that area last year?
MR. WERT: Certainly there was -- in August and September,
that's true. But we really backed out the effects of what those visitors
were, and we categorized those separately as storm-related visitors. I
didn't put that up there, but these are just visitors who were attracted in
the other months, not August and September, those hurricane months,
but the other months when our advertising was running.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I wish you would have had that
presentation of what those -- how that -- the return that we were
getting each of the months prior to being a large influx here of people
from the other coast because they were running from the hurricane.
MR. WERT: I can tell you this, that it amounts to, on the tourist
tax collections, about three percent of the growth we had last year.
When you back out August and September and just leave it totally flat
with 2003, we were still for the summer period 12 percent over the
previous year. So there definitely was real growth last summer prior
to the hurricanes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to make a motion that
we approve staffs recommendation with the modification that we
recover the emergency fund over three years rather than two.
Page 254
---,.~. --~~~--
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For discussion, did you want to split
that then half and half, SO/50?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd leave the percentage exactly the way
it is and then ask the staff for reevaluation in a couple years, and then
we'll see where we stand on that and see if there's been any substantial
changes, and see what happens.
MR. WERT: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to clarify in the motion
that it's 500,000 per year. And the third year it really would be up to
$500,000, because we want to take it up to a million and a half as the
maximum. So that's clear. And we'll word the Ordinance that way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, fine. Now we have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any
further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. WERT: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are now ready, if I remember
Page 255
July 26, 2005
correctly, for public comments, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And who do we have for public
comments, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: We have one, Mr. Kenneth Thompson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. THOMPSON: You told me to come back the 28th, and I
did, so I didn't make it, about the lights. You know, if somebody don't
put -- get out there and do something about this man with these lights,
man, I'm going stark raving crazy. And that ain't hard for me to do.
And then this man is completely crazy. He gets all over
everybody's other property and he cuts down the mangroves. He'll
show you, Mr. Mudd, there, where he got up in the man's trees. He
cut that down there the 7th. The garbage man ran. That was on a
Monday. He cut this down on a Tuesday. It lay there till the 13th, the
next Monday.
Mr. Tom Willis, I guess, is his name, he give him what he
deserve. You see that big limb there, he got it down and it fell over
the drop line on the Florida Power & Light, and he tore that down.
We had to get that back out to get the man to fix the lights. And I
don't believe -- all of this stuff.
And they said that Tom -- I mean, that Dave Scripner come out
and got a piece of the wood and he had it inspected and it was pepper
bush. Boy, I don't know where he's coming from pepper bush. That
ain't pepper bush, that's mangrove. See, he's on another man's land
there. That's the canal. He's way on that side. He cut all this stuff
down and left it laying side of the road -- and he's just hard to get
along with. And I don't know, somebody needs to help him get
straightened out.
But I need them lights out, if you could get them out, somehow
or another, get them out, because if you go around on Weeks Avenue
where the battered woman's shelter is, every one of those lights, if you
Page 256
July 26, 2005
walk down Weeks Avenue, you walk right back and the lights never
bother you. Out by the gate they're covered real nice, and as you're
going up to -- I don't see nobody else in Naples. I go all over Naples,
and I don't see nobody else like that. I sure don't.
And that other one there, I want to show it to them, Mr. Mudd,
the one about my kids. It's another horrible thing that you don't know
about me. This one, there's four of my sons living out there, 16, 17,
18 and 19 right there. And I took you up on that one about splitting
the bullet. I put that big marker down there with that base on it, see
there. And that's for me over there and the other man that's going to
split the bullet with me, over there. See there. I don't know -- that's a
joke. I'm not going to do that. That's my wife's marker.
But then he tried to burn my house down again the 4th of July.
And so I went and got this from the Sheriffs Department. They were
supposed to send an investigator. I know it's him, I caught him at it.
He hit the house and just burnt the whole driveway, and we went off
to the doctor's and come back and he tried to do it in broad daylight.
He's really a sick bird, now, I'm telling you.
So he's got two trailers, one white and one red, and he's working
out of the trailers. One day he's red and one day he's white. And
they're all over the neighborhood is like that. These people are coming
to him from up north and they work out of these trailers, and they're
modeling these houses, see, and you don't know that they're doing it
but you're not going to get by me. You're not charging these people
enough.
And like Waste Management, you know, you say well -- they'll
come out there and they'll say well, we've got to give him a chance,
you know. He does it the first time, we give him a chance. So that's
where you're wrong. Give him a chance and get some of that money
out of their pocketbooks. That's the way I look at it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I understand Mr. Mudd is working
on the light problem. I know that he's been --
Page 257
July 26, 2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. If I could just get the person to put some
globes on his lights, I think it would make it a whole lot easier, and
we're trying to get him to answer his door.
MR. THOMPSON: He won't come to the door.
MR. MUDD: So we're having some issues in that particular
case.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we cite him for that purpose? Can
we write him a ticket and fine him?
MR. MUDD: We're having problems with fill overlay and
exactly what it is, okay, and what our code says we can do and what
we can't do. I'm going to try to get the man to put some globes on his
lights. Having lights around your house for security reasons is one
thing, blinding the neighborhood is another.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay.
MR. THOMPSON: I got them all around my house, you walk up
to 'em and they'll stay on a minute. You can set them, you set them on
a minute and they'll go off. But I'm getting embarrassed at him.
But they ain't no sense in him. He's got these remote lights.
When the code comes out he turns them down, see. And when they
go off, he cuts big holes in the trees. He's put seven of them up now.
He puts one up every night. Somehow or another, he knows that Code
Enforcement's coming. I even got him for -- the other day, I know
he's been using cable vision without paying for it, so I finally got him
fixed up there. I seen him over there, and they really fined him for
that.
Now I caught him using the telephone. I ain't got him for that
yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. THOMPSON: You ought to see where it's hooked into the
telephone and run into his house. I can't believe it. This was a long
time ago that I give you some money right here? And I finally have
come and told you I wanted my money back. It's two years, six
Page 258
July 26, 2005
months and 15 days you wasn't doing nothing about it. You all didn't,
it was the other bunch, you know. So all I want is my interest back. I
told them, keep the money, give me back my interest. But he won't
give me back my interest. So they told me they kept the interest for
the problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll keep working on the light problem,
see if we can't get that solved for you.
MR. THOMPSON: If you don't, I'm going to have to fly out of
here. She don't sell the property, I'm going to have to leave cause I
ain't in no damn shape to keep this up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You like it here too much, you're not
going to leave.
MR. THOMPSON: Man, I'd get out of here in a minute. I hate
Naples --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much for your time.
MR. THOMPSON: -- but I can fix that beach for you with that
beach sand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah? All right.
MR. THOMPSON: There's a special way doing it with a fence,
the Corps of Army Engineers will support you. And I do it in
Morehead City, for -- Morehead City, and it's a special fence that you
have to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I know. We've had those installed
out on the beach in Naples.
MR. THOMPSON: No, you put it up wrong. I went looking.
That ain't fence you put up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Thompson.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker.
Item #12
Page 259
July 26, 2005
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Attorney, what do you
have?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I was going to tell you how I spent my
summer vacation, but --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't want to hear it.
MR. WEIGEL: -- we've run short on time.
I did want to introduce two attorneys with our office that are here
today. One is Colleen Green, right here. Joined our office recently to
replace a loss of an attorney lured over to the County Manager's side
of things. And Colleen will be working with Domestic Animal
Services, HR, Human Resources, as well as a lot of contract work.
Seated next to her is Steven Griffin, who is one of the new
attorneys that you provided our office position. He is our new land
use attorney working up at development services. He comes from
Indianapolis with an extensive background in Code Enforcement and
environmental legal work with the Indiana Attorney General office.
Colleen is from the east cost, and has done fine work over there as
well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Welcome aboard both of you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that it?
MR. WEIGEL: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I wish I was as easy as the County
Attorney was. But we'll try to make it quick.
Page 260
July 26, 2005
You received a letter from the Sheriff asking for representation
on the substance abuse coalition of Collier County. Commissioner. I
recommend that I send over Barry Williams as our representative
who's the director of social services. He also has some background on
this particular subject from his previous jobs that he brings that
experience to Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's okay with me. How do the
rest of the Commissioners feel about this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is great.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And I'll do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have three nods?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, you have three nods.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MR. MUDD: Sir, the next item is another letter that you
received, and this is from the State of Florida Department of Children
and Families. And they're basically asking the County to agree to the
utilization of funding for employment assistance. And they basically
have a standing agreement that they did competitively with Catholic
Charities, the Diocese of Venice, and they're asking the board to
confirm that particular vendor and the funding. And this basically has
to do with the office of refugee services. And they needed a suspense
date as of yesterday. Mr. Ochs called and asked to get it extended so
we could get our response in at close of business today, based on the
board's desires.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Do I have three nods that Commissioner Coyle can
sign that letter?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Looks like three nods to me.
MR. MUDD: Leo, go up there and get that signature, will you,
and get it on the fax machine so we don't lose the money.
Commissioner, the next issue that I need to get your approval on
is, we always talk a little bit about --
Page 261
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which Commissioner?
MR. MUDD: All Commissioners, okay? And the -- it has to do
with the 2005 holiday schedule. November is always a bit of a
dilemma because the Tuesday before Thanksgiving is when we have
our Southwest Florida delegation that comes here and they have their
hearings in the afternoon and they're out in Immokalee during the day.
In order to play around that, I would make a recommendation
that we have our meeting in November -- meetings in November on
the third Tuesday and the fifth Tuesday, which would be the 15th of
November and then on the 29th of November, and then on the second
Tuesday in December, which would be the 13th of December. And I
think we get around that fourth Tuesday, which is the Southwest
Florida delegation.
If I could get your approval for that, I'll make that -- and I'll
confirm that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Quick question, Mr. Mudd. Is
that Thanksgiving week that we would be having that meeting?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that -- no, the southwest delegation is the
Tuesday before Thanksgiving, and I'm trying to free that up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I understand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this would be after
Thanksgiving that we would have the meeting.
MR. MUDD: We'd have the meeting after Thanksgiving, and
that would be on the 29th of November. That would be the Tuesday
afterward.
So I'm making a recommendation that we have the meeting on
the third Tuesday and the fifth Tuesday, which is the 15th of
November and the 29th of November. And then we have one meeting
in December, which is the second Tuesday in December, the 13th of
December.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could I request that we get our
packets prior to the Thursday of Thanksgiving, maybe like on a
Page 262
July 26, 2005
Monday, so that we can review them in case we're --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'll try to get that to you so that it's
on a Wednesday, if I can, before Thanksgiving, so that you can have
that, and get it out to you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then we don't have -- if we
want to go out of town over Thanksgiving, we don't have to be
burdened with trying to get through the whole agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I help with that? It worked
out excellent for me when I was out of town this last time for this
meeting. I never got my agenda book until I got back on Sunday
night, but I didn't even use it because of the fact that I went on line and
I worked everything through our online site. It's a little difficult
because you can't highlight it, but the truth of the matter is, you know,
if you don't have another option, you can get it way before the
Thursday beforehand.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I will do what I can to get it to you
earlier.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We -- I mean, my calendar is
already changed. Are you asking us or are you telling us?
MR. MUDD: Sir, Judy got a little ahead of it and basically gave
the secretaries a heads up here last week, and she did it before I got
approval from you, and that's what happened. They just got a little bit
out ahead of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we ask the delegation
to change their meeting to Monday or Wednesday? For me, I would
rather do my studying the weekend prior to Thanksgiving instead of
the Thanksgiving weekend. Is it possible they could change their
meeting?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I could ask that question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we ask -- direct the
Page 263
July 26, 2005
chairman to write a letter to the delegation chairman and ask them if
they can change their meeting date.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They won't do it if I write the letter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, they might really like
that, though, just because it frees up their Thanksgiving week also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, they might want
to change it on a Monday prior to Thanksgiving, or a Wednesday, or
they might want to change it before -- Monday after or the week
before.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe we better ask Mr. Mudd to
write the letter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The week before --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we're going to have agenda
packets like that, I'm going to be falling asleep after eating all that
turkey. God knows staying awake isn't easy.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I will ask the delegation if they will change
their dates so that we can go back to our schedule of the second and
the fourth in November.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And I'm talking about the Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The Tuesday before
Thanksgiving is a particularly bad time for me this particular time. If
you can avoid it, that would be nice, okay? If you can avoid it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let me interpret that what you
just said. You like the third and fifth Tuesday of November, leaving it
that way, and just move the delegation to maybe the Monday before
our Tuesday meeting or the Wednesday after on the last week of
November; is that what you just said?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have no idea what you just said. Let's
start with Thanksgiving, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Leaving that weekend open -- week
open.
Page 264
July 26, 2005
MR. MUDD: Sir, Thanksgiving is on the 24th of November.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 24th of November, okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's on a Thursday, right?
MR. MUDD: And the delegation meeting is set for the 22nd, and
you're asking me to get them to change that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that would be nice if we could
change that. And move it after Thanksgiving, and even into early
December, as far as I'm concerned.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, can I -- well, I got it. When
do you want to have your board meetings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 15th, 29th and 13th, right?
MR. MUDD: That's my recommendation, but Commissioner
Henning doesn't like the Tuesday after Thanksgiving.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd prefer that to Thanksgiving
week.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, me too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Majority rules.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Looks like Commissioner Henning has
been outvoted. 15th, 28th and the 13th.
MR. MUDD: And the 13th. Do I have--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, you got it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As long as you get my information
to me quick.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I'm going to do the best I can.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then when would the delegation
__ when would you suggest to the delegation, the first week in
December?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, they want to do it before.
The week before Thanksgiving week.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So Thanksgiving would be the 24th
Page 265
July 26, 2005
of November.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about the Monday --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The 14th through the 18th.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 14th through the 18th, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not good for me. Wait a minute,
14th would be good, 14th would be good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 14th is the Monday right before our
meeting on Tuesday, or the 16th, 17th or 18th of that week. That's in
November we're talking about.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I will ask to see if I can get those changed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're talking the 28th -- 29th--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Everybody's talking at once, folks.
We've got to make sure the --
MR. MUDD: Sir, and I will see -- and I will go talk to the
president of that delegation, and that's Representative Davis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's good. Thank you. Anything
more?
MR. MUDD: No, sir -- yes, sir, I have one other thing, I'm sorry.
And this, I'm doing this for the Clerk. I will let you know that all the
lobbyist registrations are up on the 30th of September. So all the
lobbyists need to reregister with the Clerk of courts and pay their $25,
and so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we triple that filing fee?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I think that's up to the Clerk of the courts.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we post the notice outside
the door so they're warned about it, so we don't have to go through this
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, it is outside the door and about the -- but I
just thought I'd give everybody a heads up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn.
Page 266
July 26, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have something to say, though.
Just fast. I wanted to wish Commissioner Henning a fun summer up
in Vermont with his son and family. I want to wish you a happy
birthday while you're gone. I want to wish Frank Halas and his wife
much happiness and I hope Diane gets better quickly. Jim, have a
great time in New York this summer. And I'll see you all, I'm going
up to Amish country.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have nothing.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Only take about five minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to adjourn before -- okay,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All I want to say is everybody
enjoy this break, because I think we got a lot on our agenda starting in
September. So we've got to rest up and make sure we're ready for the
battle to come.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's it. We're adjourned.
* * * * * Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Halas
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "VALENCIA GOLF AND
COUNTRY CLUB-PHASE 2", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
Page 267
July 26, 2005
THE RELEASE AND SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR THE
FOLLOWING CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES: ALMA WALKER
& ARDIS WALKER ESTATE, RESOLUTION 92-64,
RESOLUTION 94-642, RESOLUTION 91-130; PARK EAST DEV.
LTD RESOLUTION 2005-04; ALFONSE & GRETA BOTTINO,
RESOLUTION 2003-04, RESOLUTION 2003-05, RESOLUTION
2003-06; ADELA MIAZGA RESOLUTION 95-680; JESUS
GOMEZ, RESOLUTION 2004-148; PRISCILLA CAFFA-
MOBLEY ET AL., RESOLUTION 2005-17; PRISCILLA CAFFA-
MOBLEY, EDDY WASHINGTON, STEPHANIE DAVIS &
TAMMY FLETCHER, RESOLUTION 2005-45, MORRIS
THOMAS, RESOLUTION 2005-67; EVANS & MARIE VOLCY,
RESOLUTION 2005-59; TSALACH INVESTMENTS, LLC.,
RESOLUTION 2005-58; VALERIE S. TAUSCH, RESOLUTION
2004-274; PAUL RIDDLEBERGER, JR., RESOLUTION 2001-40;
ALFREDO & MARIA SILVA, CO 2004100318; JOHN & SUSAN
QUARTUCCI, CO 2004071165; DANIALLE STEED, CE 0267;
JASON & CHRISTINA SELLERS, 2005030953; PETER C.
AMIDON TR., 2005040615; FATIMA CAGRAN, 2004020181;
STUART MCFETRIDGE, SO 146425; CHRISTY PATENAUDE &
GABRIEL DEROSE, CO 2005010210; DANIEL RYAN, CO
2004120585; JESSE SIONGCO, SO 109953; FRANK GREHL, CE
0154; ELIMA ST. LOUIS, CO 2005030615; RAYMOND DALY,
CE 1287; PHILIP RYDER, CE 1456; NORMAN ERICKSON, CE
0337; CRAIG BARTHOLOW, SO 146799; ALAN & INEZ MONIZ,
CO 2005020316; DONALD ROBERTS, JR., CO 2005010855;
MARTHA LEE JOHNSON, CEB 2004-77; ALEXIS
PALOMEQUE, CEB 2005-03, PHILLIP AND ANNA MARIA
MARRONE. CEB 2001-13
Item #16A3
Page 268
July 26, 2005
RESOLUTION 2005-265: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "ISLANDW ALK PHASE ONE". THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - WITH RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR VETERAN' S PARK COMMONS - WITH
RELEASE OF THE UPS TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER
Item #16A5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING THE FISCAL YEAR
2006 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) ENTITLEMENT FUNDING, STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (SHIP)
ALLOCATION AND CORRESPONDING BUDGETS-
PROGRAM IS JULY 1. 2005 THROUGH JUNE 30. 2006
Item #16A6
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "VERONA WALK PHASE
3B" , APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY-
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
Page 269
July 26, 2005
RESOLUTION 2005-266: BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $400,924 TO RECOGNIZE AND ACCEPT THREE
(3) GRANT AGREEMENTS FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR 2004
CONTINUUM OF CARE FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE THREE GRANT AGREEMENTS -
AWARDED TO ST. MATTHEW'S/WOLFE APARTMENTS,
HMIS (HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM)
RENEWAL, AND HMIS EXPANSION; FOR A PERIOD OF ONE
YEAR
Item #16A8
AN APPLICATION BY SANO AND ASSOCIATES,
INCORPORATED, DBA HIGH VELOCITY, FOR THE JOB
CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM, THE ADVANCED
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AND THE FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM - SANO
AND ASSOCIATES IS A MANUFACTURER OF HURRICANE
PROTECTION SYSTEMS AND PROPOSES TO CREATE SIXTY
- THREE NEW JOBS IN EASTERN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16A9
AN APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE ADVANCED
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
BY HOLE MONTES, INCORPORATED - FOR INSTALLATION
OF BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE AT THEIR OFFICES AT
950 ENCORE WAY IN NAPLES
Item #16A10
Page 270
July 26, 2005
ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE
JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM, THE ADVANCED
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM,
THE PROPERTY TAX STIMULUS PROGRAM, AND THE FEE
PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM - COVERS THE ANNUAL
PERIOD THROUGH APRIL~ 2005
Item #16All
AN APPLICATION BY TRAINING AND MANUFACTURING
INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED FOR THE JOB CREATION
INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND THE FEE PAYMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM - FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
TRAINING AND MANUFACTURING FACILITY IN
IMMOKALEE; PROPOSES TO CREATE TWENTY NEW JOBS
IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2005-267: AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS FOR COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS TO ATTEND SEMINARS, WORKSHOPS,
AND CONFERENCES RELATED TO THEIR DUTIES
Item #16A13
AN APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE ADVANCED
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
BY NCH HEAL THCARE SYSTEM, INCORPORATED FOR
THREE (3) SITE LOCATIONS - LOCATED ON SEVENTH
STREET NORTH, PINE RIDGE ROAD, AND HEALTH PARK
BOULEVARD
Page 271
July 26, 2005
Item #16A14
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,990
TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM IMP ACT FEE REVENUE TO
IMPACT FEE OPERATING EXPENSES, WITHIN FUND 131,
FOR THE PAYMENT OF EXPENSES RELATED TO THE FIRE
PROTECTION IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY AND THE
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY
Item #16A15 - Moved to Item #101
Item #16A16
RESOLUTION 2005-268: THE EXECUTION OF A
CONDITIONAL GRANT AGREEMENT WITH BIG CYPRESS
HOUSING CORPORATION, PER THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
RECOMMENDATIONS, IN ORDER TO RETAIN 2003 HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE EDEN GARDENS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING COMPLEX - LOCATED IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16A17
RESOLUTION 2005-269: AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FEE SCHEDULE OF
DEVELOPMENT-RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES
AS PROVIDED FOR IN CODE OF LAWS SECTION 2-11 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A18
Page 272
--..- ...---~-
July 26, 2005
RESOLUTION 2005-270: ACCEPTING THE AUDUBON
COUNTRY CLUB PUD BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN
TO REPLACE THE EXISTING 1991 AND 2001 MANAGEMENT
PLANS
Item #16B1
THE GRANTING OF EASEMENTS TO FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY OVER NINE PARCELS OWNED BY
COLLIER COUNTY - ACROSS UNUSED PORTIONS OF
SEVERAL STORMW A TER TREATMENT POND SITES ON
IMMOKALEE ROAD BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
FAIRGROUNDS AND FPL'S NEW SUBSTATION JUST WEST
OF WILSON BOULEVARD
Item # 16B2
RESOLUTION 2005-271: AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF
PROPERTY FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO COLLIER COUNTY FOR PUBLIC
PURPOSE; THE ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT IS $27.00-
LOCATED ALONG US 41 AT THE INTERSECTION OF
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST
Item #16B3
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000.00
FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES FOR
STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PALM RIVER
COUNTRY CLUB LANE AREA (PROJECT NO. 510074) WITH
CONSULTANTS PBS&J - FOR DESIGN OF NEW CATCH
BASINS AND DRAINAGE PIPES
Page 273
July 26, 2005
Item #16B4
THREE (3) ADOPT-A-ROAD AGREEMENTS FOR THE
FOLLOWING: ARLENE'S AT YOUR SERVICE, LIZ APPLING-
FLORIDA HOME REALTY AND PALMETTO RIDGE HIGH
SCHOOL JROTC - FOR A TOTAL COST OF $150.00 FOR TWO
NEW SIGNS~ THE REMAINING SIGNS ALREADY EXIST
Item #16B5
THE PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCELS 114 AND 714
WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (PROJECT 65061); THE TOTAL FISCAL IMPACT
IS $146,587.82 - LOCATED BETWEEN 3RD AVE N.W. AND 5TH
AVE. N.W.
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 2005-272: APPROVING A FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) STANDARD
FORM UTILITY WORK AGREEMENT REGARDING COLLIER
COUNTY RELOCATING ITS UTILITY FACILITIES
NECESSITATED BY FDOT'S WIDENING OF 1-75 (STATE
ROAD 93) FROM NORTH OF GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y TO
SOUTH OF BONITA BEACH ROAD, PROJECTS 70045 AND
73045 - FOR THE RELOCATION OF UTILITIES AT THE PINE
RIDGE ROAD INTERCHANGE AND AT THE IMMOKALEE
ROAD INTERCHANGE
Item #16C2
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN THE
Page 274
July 26, 2005
AMOUNT OF $490,000 FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT OPERATING FUND (408)
RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES TO COVER
UNANTICIPATED OPERATING EXPENSES IN THE SCRWTP
COST CENTER - FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR
2005 TO COVER RATE INCREASES, INCREASED DEMAND
FOR WATER PRODUCED BY THE REVERSE OSMOSIS
TREATMENT PROCESS, AND OVERTIME REQUIRED BY THE
TRAINING AND COMMISSIONING OF THE FACILITY
Item # 16C3
THE PURCHASE OF A TRUCK WITH HYDRAULIC CRANE
FOR THE WATER DEPARTMENT FROM ATLANTIC TRUCK
CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $173,829 PER STATE
CONTRACT #070-700-322 - USED FOR PERFORMING
SCHEDULED PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE AND
UNSCHEDULED EMERGENCY REPAIRS FOR COUNTY WELL
PUMPS
Item #16C4
AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF A PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH METCALF &
EDDY, INC. FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT 8 MGD REVERSE OSMOSIS (SCRWTP)
EXPANSION, CONTRACT 98-2891, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$88,560 AND EXTEND THE TIME UP TO DECEMBER 1,2005
(PROJECT 70054) - FOR PROJECT ADMINISTRATION,
OBSERVATION THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION
COMPLETION DATE OF AUGUST 1,2005 AND FOLLOW-ON
OFFICE ENGINEERING REQUIRED THROUGH DECEMBER 1,
Page 275
July 26, 2005
2005 FOR DEFICIENCIES FOUND IN THE WORK DONE BY
THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR
Item # 16C5
A WORK ORDER HS-FT-05-04 WITH HAZEN AND SAWYER,
P.C., IN THE AMOUNT OF $185,930 FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE NORTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
(NCRWTP) WELL FIELD RELIABILITY PROGRAM (PROJECTS
NO. 71006 AND NO. 71011) - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16C6
RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT ALL PROPOSALS
SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO RFP #02-3382, "COMMERCIAL
SOURCE SEPARATED ORGANIC WASTE AND BIOSOLIDS
PROCESSING AND BENEFICIAL USE" (PROJECT NO. 73127)
Item #16C7
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,000 FOR
THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT OPERATING FUND (408)
RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES TO COVER
UNANTICIPATED OPERATING EXPENSES IN THE
WASTEWATER REUSE COST CENTER - FOR EMERGENCY
RECLAIMED WATER LINE REPAIRS
Item #16C8
Page 276
July 26, 2005
A RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSENT AGREEMENT AND
ASSOCIATED MEMORANDUM WITH FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS AND RELATED
FACILITIES, WITHIN FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
POWER-LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY, FROM THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT TO THE VICINITY
OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD FOR THE SOUTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT REVERSE
OSMOSIS WELLFIELD EXPANSION TO 20-MGD AT A COST
NOT TO EXCEED $50.00 (PROJECT NO. 708921)
Item #16C9
AWARD BID #05-3778 TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING, INC.
FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY (NCWRF) LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $182,665.00 (PROJECT NO.'S 73077, 739501, AND
739502) - TO REMOVE ALL EXOTIC VEGETATION AND TO
INSTALL NEW NATIVE PLANTS AT THE NCWRF
Item #16C10
WORK ORDER VC-02-30 UNDER CONTRACT 02-3349, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $197,100 TO WM. J. VARIAN CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC. TO EFFECT REPAIRS TO THE RECLAIMED
WATER STORAGE TANK AT THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY (PROJECT NO. 74031) - TO
IMPROVE RELIABILITY AND EXTEND THE LIFE OF THE
STORAGE TANK
Item #16C11
Page 277
July 26, 2005
AMENDMENT NO.3 TO WORK ORDER NO. GH-FT -02-9;
CONTRACT 00-3119; PROFESSIONAL UTILITIES
ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GREELEY
AND HANSEN LLC FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
OF THE SANTA BARBARA SEWER FORCE MAIN
INTERCONNECT BETWEEN THE NORTH AND SOUTH
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS, PROJECTS 73132
AND 73151, IN THE AMOUNT OF $87,040 - FOR A SIX MILE
INTERCONNECT TO BE INSTALLED ALONG SANTA
BARBARA AND LOGAN BOULEVARDS FROM RADIO ROAD
NORTH TO V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD
Item #16C12
AWARD BID #05-3867 FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN ITRON
MOBILE COLLECTION SYSTEM TO HERSEY METERS
COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,000.00, FOR THE
UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT
- FOR CAPABILITIES DESIGNED TO ENHANCE THE
COLLECTION OF WATER METER BILLING DATA
Item #16C13
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS
FROM RESERVES IN THE MANDATORY TRASH
COLLECTION FUND (FUND 473) TO OPERATIONS FOR
PAYMENT TO THE COUNTY'S TRASH COLLECTION
FRANCHISEE HAULERS FOR SERVICES PROVIDED TO
CURBSIDE CUSTOMERS WHO RECEIVED CERTIFICATES OF
OCCUPANCY AFTER OCTOBER 1,2004. THE FISCAL IMPACT
IS $125,200.00 - ATTRIBUTED TO AN INCREASE IN
Page 278
July 26, 2005
CURBSIDE CUSTOMERS
Item #16C14
A NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT AND PURCHASE
ORDER TO ANGIE BREWER AND ASSOCIATES, L.C. IN
AMOUNT OF $228,094.64 UNDER SARASOTA COUNTY
CONTRACT 2003-040 FOR LOAN PROCUREMENT SERVICES
FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION (FDEP) FOR PROJECT NO. 701582,2005 WELL
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (TAMIAMI WELL NO. 34) AND
PROJECT NO. 710061, 2004 NCRWTP RO WELLFIELD
RELIABILITY (LOWER HAWTHORN RO WELLS 18N, 19N
AND 20N) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C15
FINAL CHANGE ORDER NO.3 TO CONTRACT 00-3171 WITH
MWH AMERICAS, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL TIME AND A
DEDUCTIVE AMOUNT OF ($687,560.82), AND APPROVE ANY
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE SOUTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY 16 MGD
EXPANSION (PROJECT 73949) - COMPLETED FOUR MONTHS
AHEAD OF SCHEDULE AND $1.7 MILLION UNDER BUDGET;
AFTER SHARING UNSPENT ALLOWANCES, CONSTRUCTION
SAVINGS AND PAYMENT OF AN EARLY COMPLETION
INCENTIVE THE DEDUCTIVE AMOUNT WILL BE
RETURNED TO THE PROJECT BUDGET
Item #16C16
RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT ALL PROPOSALS
Page 279
July 26, 2005
RECEIVED UNDER RFP #05-3813, "PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TO DEVELOP COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER
MASTER PLANS, WITH RATE STRUCTURE AND IMPACT
FEE STUDIES" (PROJECT NOS. 700704 AND 730664)
Item #16C17
A SECOND CONTRACT UNDER RFP #00-3129 FOR THE
STANDARDIZATION OF AN AUTOMATIC METER READING
SYSTEM WITH AMCO WATER METERING SERVICES, INC.
IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $2,000,000; $500,000 A
YEAR FOR 4 YEARS - TO UPGRADE THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT'S METER READING TECHNOLOGY BY
READING WATER METERS BY RADIO
Item #16C18
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT MOVING FUNDS FROM THE
MANDATORY TRASH COLLECTION FUND RESERVES TO
THE MANDATORY TRASH COLLECTION FUND
OPERATIONS FOR CITIZEN OUTREACH, EDUCATION AND
ADVERTISING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW TRASH COLLECTIONS
FRANCHISEE AGREEMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $283,658.00
FROM RESERVES IN FUND (473) - TO EDUCATE THE
PUBLIC REGARDING TRASH SERVICE COLLECTION
SERVICE CHANGES THAT WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE
OCTOBER 1~ 2005
Item #16D1
Page 280
July 26, 2005
AWARD BID #05-3840 TO MULTIPLE VENDORS FOR
PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF ARTS AND CRAFTS
SUPPLIES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS AT
AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURE OF $50,000 - BID
AWARDED TO S&S RECREATION, AFP SCHOOL SUPPLY,
AND DICK BLICK CO.
Item #16D2
AN AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF A STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GRANT TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ORGANIZATION FOR THE 2005 TRANSPORTATION
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM TO BEGIN THE RESTORATION
OF OBSERVATION CAR #6602 AT THE NAPLES DEPOT
TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM IN THE AMOUNT OF $243~400
Item #16D3
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT A "LET'S TALK ABOUT IT"
JEWISH LITERATURE GRANT FROM THE AMERICAN
LIBRARY ASSOCIATION FOR A SERIES OF BOOK
DISCUSSION PROGRAMS FOR $1,500 - FOR A DISCUSSION
SERIES THAT INTEGRATES THE EXPLORATION OF JEWISH
CULTURE WITH THE EXPLORATION OF LITERATURE
Item #16D4
APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES COUNCIL, INC. FOR AN INCLUSIVE SUMMER
RECREATION GRANT TO FUND TRAINING OF CAMP
COUNSELORS FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS IN AN
Page 281
July 26, 2005
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 - TO MAKE IT
POSSIBLE FOR SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
SUMMER RECREATION PROGRAMS; THE GRANT TERM IS
FOR FIFTEEN-MONTHS AND MAY BE RENEWED FOR UP TO
TWO SUBSEQUENT TWELVE-MONTH PERIODS
Item #16D5
A FLORIDA RECREATION DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT FOR $200,000 FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK -
THE PROJECT COST IS APPROXIMATELY $58 MILLION AND
HAS A COMPLETION DATE OF APRIL 30~ 2008
Item #16D6
CONVEYANCE OF THREE EASEMENTS TO FLORIDA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE
TO NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK ON LIVINGSTON
ROAD, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $157.75 FOR
RECORDING (PROJECT 806021)
Item #16D7
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT A DEED OF
CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE VANDERBILT
BEACH PARKING GARAGE AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$45.00 FOR RECORDING THE EASEMENT (PROJECT 90295) -
FOR A 2.56 ACRE EASEMENT FOR COMPLETION PLANNED
IN EARLY 2006
Page 282
July 26, 2005
Item #16D8
AWARD WORK ORDER #VC-02-34 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$63,429 TO WM. J. VARIAN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FOR
THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF NEW FILTERS FOR
THE SWIMMING POOL AT THE IMMOKALEE SPORTS
COMPLEX- FOR REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF THE
EXISTING FIVE FILTERS AND REPLACE WITH 3 NEW
FIL TERS
Item #16D9 - Moved to Item #10K
Item #16D10
RECOGNIZE AND BUDGET AN ADDITIONAL $96,029 IN
REVENUE AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE AID TO LIBRARY
PROGRAM FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY
FOR FY05 - LIBRARY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE
FUNDS BE USED TO PURCHASE DATA PROCESSING
EQUIPMENT AND SOFW ARE
Item #16D11
RESOLUTION 2005-273: ACCEPTING A $500,000 DONATION
FROM THE W. R. ROSE FOUNDATION FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A MEETING ROOM AT THE MARCO
ISLAND BRANCH LIBRARY - THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS
EXPECTED TO COST $1,000,000 AND THE DONATION WILL
BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTIPURPOSE
AUDITORIUM; CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE COMPLETED IN
FOUR YEARS OR THE DONATION IS TO REVERT TO THE
W.R. ROSE FOUNDATION
Page 283
July 26, 2005
Item #16D12
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE CONTRACT
WITH INNOVATIVE INTERFACES, INC., FOR A LIBRARY
AUTOMATION SYSTEM, AT A COST OF $268,845 - FOR A
TECHNICALLY ADVANCED LIBRARY AUTOMATION
SOFTWARE SYSTEM DUE TO THE INCREASING
POPULATION OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16D13
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $14,500 IN
REVENUE FROM THE SALE OF LIVE BAIT AT CAXAMBAS
P ARK AND APPROVE A MODIFICATION IN THE AMOUNT
OF $10,000 TO PURCHASE ORDER #4500035141 WITH
NAPLES WHOLESALE BAIT - BECAUSE SALES CONTINUE
TO EXCEED STAFF EXPECTATIONS THIS WILL ASSURE A
CONTINUOUS SUPPLY THROUGH THE BALANCE OF THE
FISCAL YEAR
Item #16E1
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING IN
THEIR CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE GAC LAND TRUST,
APPROVE AND EXECUTE A RIGHT-OF-ENTRY TO ENABLE
THE DRILLING OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
TEST/PRODUCTION AND MONITOR WELLS ON UNIT 14,
TRACT 127, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - TO DETERMINE THE
QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF THE WATER AVAILABLE IN
THE SUB-SURFACE AQUIFERS FOR POTENTIAL USE IN
EXPANDING THE PUBLIC POTABLE WATER SUPPLY
Page 284
July 26, 2005
Item #16E2
CONVEYANCE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR A
WASTEWATER MASTER PUMP STATION AND A PUBLIC
WATER SUPPLY WELL SITE WITH ITS ASSOCIATED
PIPELINE ON PROPERTY DEDICATED WITHIN THE
HERITAGE BAY PUD AT AN ESTIMATED COST NOT TO
EXCEED $53.50 (PROJECT NO. 730791 AND PROJECT NO.
710061) - THE 1.25 ACRE EASEMENT IS LOCATED NORTH
OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND
IMMOKALEE ROAD WITHIN THE HERIT AGE BAY PUD
Item # 16E3
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF GAC TRUST
RESERVED LAND TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS &
RECREATION DEPARTMENT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
FOR THE RESIDENTS OF GOLDEN GATE ESTATES-
LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF OAKS BOULEVARD AND
20TH AVENUE N.W. AND CONSISTS OF 5.22 ACRES
Item #16E4
RATIFY ADDITIONS TO, MODIFICATIONS TO AND
DELETIONS FROM THE 2005 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND
CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE FROM MARCH 24,2005
THROUGH JUNE 30~ 2005
Item #16E5
PURCHASE OF A CONFINED SPACE GAS MONITORING
SYSTEM FOR THE WATER, WASTEWATER AND RISK
Page 285
July 26, 2005
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENTS-TO ENSURE THE
ATMOSPHERE IN THE SPACE IS TESTED AND FOUND TO BE
FREE OF DANGEROUS LEVELS OF TOXIC OR FLAMMABLE
VAPORS AND THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT OXYGEN
Item # 16E6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE FY04-05 FLEET
MANAGEMENT FUND (521) OPERATING BUDGET
EXPENDITURES AND ASSOCIATED REVENUES BY $60,000-
FOR COVERING THE COSTS OF PARTS FOR THE
REMAINING CURRENT FISCAL YEAR MAINTENANCE AND
REP AIR REQUIREMENTS
Item #16E7
AN AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY DISTRICT
SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE 2005 DRIVER EDUCATION
GRANT PROGRAM - FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $199,267
WILL BE PROVIDED WITHIN 45 DAYS TO THE SCHOOL
BOARD TO PAY FOR NEW SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR
THE REGULAR AND SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAMS
Item #16E8
THE SUBMITTAL OF FOUR GRANT REQUESTS TO THE BIG
CYPRESS BASIN/SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT FOR FY 06 FUNDING - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E9
Page 286
July 26, 2005
THE SUBMITTAL OF TWO GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR
HARVARD UNIVERSITY'S INNOVATIONS IN AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT AWARD - THE PROGRAMS SELECTED ARE
THE "ESTOPPEL SYSTEM" DEVELOPED BY THE UTILITY
BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT, AND
"SUBROGATION" IMPLEMENTED BY THE RISK
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Item #16E10
AWARD ITQ #05-3657 - "PROJECT MANAGEMENT
OVERSIGHT SERVICES" TO CH2MHILL, PBS&J, JOHNSON
ENGINEERING, URS, CONSTRUCTION DYNAMICS GROUP,
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE,
QUATTRONE AND HEERY INTERNATIONAL - FOR PROJECT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES USED FOR LANDSCAPING,
PARKS, TRANSPORTATION AND DRAINAGE, VERTICAL
CONSTRUCTION AND UTILITIES
Item #16E11
A $121,732 CHANGE TO CONTRACT #03-3489,
"PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN SERVICES
FOR ADDITION TO AND RENOVATION OF THE GOLDEN
GATE LIBRARY", WITH BARANY SCHMITT SUMMERS
WEAVER AND PARTNERS, INC. (BSSW) TO MODIFY THE
SCOPE TO DESIGN A SEPARATE BUILDING RATHER THAN
AN ADDITION (PROJECT 54261) - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E12
Page 287
July 26, 2005
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - COVERING THE PERIOD OF MAY 26, 2005
THROUGH JUNE 30~ 2005
Item #16E13
CONTRACT #05-3850, "COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
CENTER ARCHITECTURAL / ENGINEERING SERVICES",
WITH SPILLIS CANDELA & PARTNERS, INC. - SERVICES
MAY INCLUDE, BUT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO: UPDATES
TO THE MASTER PLAN, FULL AND/OR PARTIAL
ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING SERVICES, THE CHILLER
PLANT EXPANSION AND FOR MINOR PROJECTS ON OR
AROUND THE CAMPUS
Item #16E14
A $214,797.50 CHANGE TO CONTRACT #03-3448,
"PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN SERVICES
FOR COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES
COMPLEX", WITH HARVARD JOLLY TO ADDRESS SCOPE
CHANGES WITH THE DESIGN (PROJECT 52160) - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E15
A $58,875 CHANGE TO CONTRACT #02-3422,
"PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR A NEW
COUNTY FLEET FACILITY" WITH DISNEY & ASSOCIATES,
P.A. TO MODIFY THE SCOPE TO INITIATE THE POTENTIAL
DESIGN OF A COLLIER AREA TRANSIT FACILITY (PROJECT
Page 288
July 26, 2005
NO. 52009 AND NO. 35010) - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E16
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND 518 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$535,000 TO FUND THE PAYMENT OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION AND REINSURANCE EXPENSES THROUGH
THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 2005 - TO COVER HIGHER THAN
ANTICIPATED REINSURANCE, POTENTIAL CLAIMS COSTS
AND OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES
Item #16F1
BOARD RATIFICATION OF SUMMARY, CONSENT AND
EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY
MANAGER DURING THE BOARD'S SCHEDULED RECESS.
PER RESOLUTION NUMBER 2000-149, APPROVED DURING
THE BOARD'S SCHEDULED RECESS~ JULY 12~ 2005
Item #16F2
SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN LIVE OAK PRODUCTION
GROUP AND COLLIER COUNTY TO PRODUCE A
DOCUMENTARY ON THE WESTERN EVERGLADES, CALLED
"THE BIG CYPRESS SWAMP" IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $40,000 - PROJECTED DATE OF COMPLETION IS
JUNE 31, 2006 FOR A ONE HOUR DOCUMENTARY AIRED ON
13 PBS STATIONS IN FLORIDA, THE EDUCATIONAL CABLE
CHANNELS, FLORIDA KNOWLEDGE CHANNEL AND OTHER
PUBLIC ACCESS CHANNELS TO INCREASE THE
IMPORTATNCE OF PRESERVING THE ECOSYSTEM
Page 289
July 26, 2005
Item #16F3
RECOMMENDATION TO SEEK FORMAL COMPETITION TO
HIRE A STATE LOBBYIST TO REPRESENT COLLIER
COUNTY IN TALLAHASSEE - TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES IN TALLAHASSEE DURING THE
2006 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Item #16F4
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - AMENDMENT #05-473; LAW
LIBRARY EXPENSES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY05 AND
AMENDMENT #05-482; PAYMENT FOR VETERINARIAN
INVOICES PER THE AGREEMENT WITH THE
VETERINARIAN ASSOCIATION
Item #16F5
A DISASTER MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND MULTIPLE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
EMERGENCY/DISASTER RESPONSE AGENCIES - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F6
MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND MULTIPLE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DISASTER
RELIEF AND ASSISTANCE AGENCIES - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16F7
Page 290
July 26, 2005
AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR $97,500 WITH THE FERGUSON
GROUP FOR FEDERAL LOBBYING SERVICES - TO MATCH
COLLIER COUNTY'S SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE
REQUIREMENTS AND ELIGIBILITY WITH AVAILABLE
FEDERAL FUNDING
Item #16F8 - Moved to Item #10J
Item #16H1
FINAL STATUS REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS FROM THE COMMUNITY
CHARACTER/SMART GROWTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
SUNSETTING JUNE 26, 2005 - WHILE CONTINUING TO
SUPPORT EFFORTS THROUGH APPROVAL OF THE
UPCOMING LDC AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE
GROUP, PROMOTING MIXED USE IN RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL PUDS
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A DINNER HOSTED BY RAYMOND JAMES &
ASSOCIATES, INC., BRYANT MILLER & OLIVE P .A., THE
PFM GROUP, AND WELLS FARGO CORPORATE TRUST
SERVICES AT THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN TAMPA, FLORIDA ON JUNE 21,
2005; $45.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS'
TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT TINA TAPA'S
Item #16H3
Page 291
--~""'.._...-,.-.~ ..._-,..,..__.~.,..,..,
July 26, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR
HAVING ATTENDED A DINNER HOSTED BY WASTE
MANAGEMENT, INC. AT THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN TAMPA, FLORIDA ON
JUNE 22, 2005; $15.33 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT IL TERRAZZO IN THE
TAMPA MARRIOT WATERSIDE HOTEL
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR
HAVING ATTENDED AN EVENING RECEPTION HOSTED BY
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. AT THE FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN
TAMPA, FLORIDA ON JUNE 22, 2005; $17.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD
AT IL TERRAZZO IN THE TAMP A MARRIOT WATERSIDE
HOTEL
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 292
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
. July 26, 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. June 4. 2005 through June 9. 2005.
2. June 10.2005 through June 16.2005.
3. June 17.2005 through June 23.2005.
4. June 24. 2005 through July 1. 2005.
B. Districts:
1. Port of the Islands Community Improvement District: Agenda and
Minutes of January 28,2005; Agenda and Minutes of February 18, 2005;
Minutes of March 24, 2005.
2. Naples Heritage Community Development District: Agenda and Minutes
of March 14, 2005; General Fund Budget FY 2006.
3. Verona Walk Community Development District: FY2004-2005 Regular
Board Meeting Schedule.
4. North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District: Annual Financial Report;
Audit; Management Letter; Rebuttal to Management Letter; Registered
Office and Agent; Schedule of Regular Meetings; Public Facilities
Report.
5. Cow Slough Water. Control District: Budget for FY 2005-2006;
Schedule of Regular Meetings.
C. Minutes:
1. Collier County Planning Commission: Revised Agenda of June 16,2005;
Agenda of July 7, 2005; Minutes of April 27, 2005; Minutes of May 5,
2005; Minutes of May 19, 2005.
2. Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee: Agenda and
Minutes of April 13, 2005; Agenda and Minutes of May 18,2005;
H:Data/Format
Agenda and Minutes of June 1,2005; Agenda and Informal Minutes of
June 8, 2005 (quorum not met); Agenda and Minutes of June 22, 2005
FINAL MEETING (not approved by committee).
3. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Agenda of June 15, 2005;
Minutes of May 18,2005.
4. Caribbean Gardens Blue Ribbon Committee: Minutes of May 16,2005.
5. Collier County Historic and Archaeological Preservation Board: Agenda
for June 15, 2005; Minutes of May 25, 2005.
6. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU: Minutes of May 19,2005
(informal, quorum was not met).
7. Coastal Advisory Inlet Management Sub-Committee Minutes: Minutes of
May 3, 2005; Minutes of May 12, 2005.
8. Radio Road Beautification MSTU: Minutes of May 17, 2005; Minutes of
May 24, 2005; Agenda of June 28, 2005.
9. Collier County Library Advisory Board: Agenda of June 22, 2005;
Minutes of May 25, 2005, regular session; Minutes of May 25, 2005
Annual Meeting.
10. Development Services Advisory Committee: Revised Agenda of June 1,
2005; Minutes of June 1,2005.
11. Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda for July
13, 2005; Minutes of June 8, 2005.
12. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda for July 13,2005; Minutes of June 8, 2005; Minutes for
EMERGENCY MEETING of June 24,2005.
13. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes of June
15,2005; Agenda for September 21,2005.
14. Collier County Government Productivity Committee: Minutes of May 8,
2005; Minutes of May 24, 2005; Minutes of May 27, 2005.
15. Collier County Citizens COIl'S Advisory Committee: Minutes of June 15,
2005; Agenda for June 15,2005.
16. Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda for July 6,2005.
17. Pelican Bay Services Division MSTU: Agenda of July 6,2005; Minutes
of June 1,2005.
H:Data/Format
a) Clam Bay Sub-Committee: Agenda of July 6, 2005; Minutes of
April 6, f005.
18. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of July 19, 2005;
Minutes of June 2,2005.
19. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of July 12, 2005;
Minutes of June 14,2005.
D. Other:
1) Public Records Request on the Collier County Productivity Committee by
George K. Rasley, Jr. dated June 30, 2005.
H:Data/Format
July 26, 2005
Item #16J1
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS SERVE AS THE LOCAL COORDINATING
UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT'S EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL STATE
AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE FORMULA
GRANT, APPROVE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT
APPLICATION, AUTHORIZE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT
AWARD, AND APPROVE ASSOCIATED BUDGET
AMENDMENTS - FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1)
PRINTRAK LIVESCAN MACHINE THAT WILL INTEGRATE
WITH FDLE'S NEW INTEGRATED CRIMINAL HISTORY
SYSTEM (FALCON)
Item #16K1
AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, APRIL CIRCLE,
LTD., FOR PARCEL NOS. 146/746 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$222,755 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
APRIL CIRCLE, LTD., ET AL., CASE NO. 04-3679-CA - FOR A
FISCAL IMP ACT OF $34,090.65 IF THE OFFER IS ACCEPTED
(IMMOKALEE RD. PROJECT 66042)
Item #16K2
AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, WINTERVIEW
COURT II MASTER ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR PARCEL NO. 137
IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. WAL-MART STORES, INC., ET AL., CASE
NO. 04-3632-CA - FOR A FISCAL IMPACT OF $3,013.00 IF THE
OFFER IS ACCEPTED (IMMOKALEE RD. PROJECT 66042)
Page 293
-----.-..-..........-..^". ----"'..--.---
July 26, 2005
Item #16K3
AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $171,700.00
AS TO PARCEL 139 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. EDWARD STANLEY SANDITEN, ET AL., CASE NO.
02-5165-CA - FOR A FISCAL IMPACT OF $18,669.00 IF THE
OFFER IS ACCEPTED (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO.
60018)
Item #16K4
AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, G. HERBST,
FOR PARCEL NO. 113 IN THE AMOUNT OF $95,760.00 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. G. HERBST, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 02-5138-CA - FOR A FISCAL IMPACT OF $23,910.00
IF THE OFFER IS ACCEPTED (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT
NO. 60018)
Item #16K5
AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, MARY H.
WAGNER, FOR PARCELS 106 & 806 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$611,472.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
TREE PLATEAU CO., INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 03-0519-CA - FOR
A FISCAL IMPACT OF $146,626.76 IF THE OFFER IS
ACCEPTED (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT 60018)
Item #16K6
A REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT TO USE THE
COUNTY BOAT RAMP WITH THE CURRENT OWNER OF 4220
22ND STREET NE, NAPLES, FLORIDA - IN EXCHANGE FOR
Page 294
July 26, 2005
ACCESS TO A CANAL ADJACENT TO HIS PROPERTY
Item #17 A - Moved to Item #8G
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2005-274: PETITION A VROW2005-AR7786 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE EAST 20 FEET OF THE 50-
FOOT WIDE PARCEL FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG
SMALLWOOD DRIVE (FORMERLY S.R. NO. 29) WHICH WAS
DEDICATED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY OPERATION OF LAW
AS SET FORTH IN S 95.361 (2) F.S., LOCATED IN SECTION 31,
TOWNSHIP 53 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST (CHOKOLOSKEE
ISLAND)
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2005-37: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC), TO CORRECT
A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN ORDINANCE NO. 05-27 DUE TO
AN UNINTENDED REVISION TO LDC SECTION 10.03.05 - TO
CORRECTLY PROVIDE NOTICE WITHIN 500' OF PROPERTY
FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION, THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL, AND THE
HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD;
AND BY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #17D
Page 295
July 26, 2005
ORDINANCE 2005-38: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE, 2001-13, AS AMENDED, WHICH IS CHAPTER 74
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN THE
MAXIMUM HOME SALES PRICE FOR PARTICIPATION IN
THE "IMMOKALEE RESIDENTIAL IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL
PROGRAM" FROM $175,000 TO $254,250 WHICH IS ALSO THE
STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LIMIT
FOR COLLIER COUNTY, IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR MORE
EFFECTIVE UTILIZATION OF THE PROGRAM BY QUALIFIED
APPLICANTS
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2005-39: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6279, DOMINIC P.
TOMEI, PRESIDENT OF RESTORATION CHURCH, INC., AND
TIMOTHY J. CRANE, MANAGER OF BUCKS RUN
DEVELOPERS, LLC., REPRESENTED BY WILLIAM L.
HOOVER, AICP OF HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT,
INC., AND AS PRESIDENT OF CATALINA LAND GROUP,
INC., THE MANAGER OF BUCKS RUN ESTATES, LLC,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE "PUD" TO MIXED USE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) KNOWN AS BUCKS
RUN MPUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
700 FEET NORTH OF V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD ON THE
EASTERN SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951), IN
SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA
Item #17F - Continued to the September 13,2005 BCC Meeting
Page 296
July 26, 2005
A RESOLUTION REVISING THE COLLIER COUNTY W ATER-
SEWER DISTRICT UTILITIES STANDARDS MANUAL
Item #17G
RESOLUTION 2005-275: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING COLLIER
COUNTY'S POTABLE WATER-WELLS FACILITY PLAN,
DATED JUNE 2005; AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SUBMIT THIS PLAN TO
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:21 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~1.tW C ~
FRED . COYLE, cra-airman
. \', P ~I,~q ...
\ ui....
ATTEST: . ~
DWIGffT.:E. B~OtK, CLERK
c
Attest as to C atniln',
.tgnat.... 011,.
Page 297
July 26, 2005
These minutes approved by the Board on ~ (3 _ ) aCf) '5 , as
presented ~ or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 298