BCC Minutes 09/27/2005 R
September 27, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 27, 2005
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9: 00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Derek Johnssen, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ii',
-':>
"
~ ~^
'~...~~
AGENDA
September 27, 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 PRESENT A TION 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
September 27, 2005
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Paul Getter, Faith Apostolic Church
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.)
Approved and/or adopted with changes - 5/0
B. August 25,2005 - BCC/Hurricane Katrina Emergency Meeting
Approved as presented - 5/0
C. August 27, 2005 - BCC/Hurricane Katrina Emergency Meeting
Approved as presented - 5/0
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) Nancy Frye, Traffic Operations
2) Erin Hall, Transportation Road Maintenance
Presented
B. 30 Year Attendees
1) Denise Blanton, University Extension Services
2) Murdo Smith, Parks and Recreation
Page 2
September 27, 2005
3) Edward Torroni, Parks and Recreation
Presented
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating September 27,2005, as Collier County WWII
Veterans' Day. To be accepted by Gary Shanabarger, Commandant, Senior
Marine of the Marine Corps League of Naples; Jim Elson, Veterans Council
of Collier County; Peter Kraley, Veteran Services Department and Jack
Hild, 14th Air Force-Flying Tigers World War II Veteran.
Adopted - 5/0
B. Proclamation expressing appreciation for Mr. William Suckow's work as a
Master Gardner. To be accepted by William Suckow, Master Gardner.
Adopted - 5/0
C. Proclamation designating September 15,2005, as Sheri Bennett Day. To be
accepted by Sheri Bennett, Executive Director, Immokalee Multicultural
Multipurpose Community Action Agency, Inc.
Adopted - 5/0
D. Proclamation designating November 2005 as Celebrate the Arts Month in
Collier County. To be accepted by Elaine Hamilton, Executive Director,
United Arts Council of Collier County.
Adopted - 5/0
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Roberta Reiss, Library Outreach Specialist,
Public Services Division as Employee of the Month for August 2005.
B. Recommendation to recognize Judy Johnson, Administrative Assistant,
Public Utilities Division, as Employee of the Month for September 2005.
C. Presentation of the 2005 Flagler Awards "The Henry" In Recognition of
Outstanding Tourism Marketing -Television-Naples, Marco Island,
Everglades Convention & Visitors Bureau - Presented by Jack Wert,
Tourism Director.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Page 3
September 27, 2005
A. Public Petition request by Bradley Cornell to discuss the Mirasol Drainage
Project in the Cocohatchee/Corkscrew West Flowway.
This Item to be brought back at a future BCC meeting
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 D.m.. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item continued from the September 13~ 2005 BCC Meetinf!. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. ADA-2005-AR-7658, Joseph C.
Fuller, P.A., representing John and Teri Purvis and other affected property
owners requesting an appeal to Official Interpretation INTP-2005-AR-7442
related to an internal official interpretation regarding the definition and
operative provisions of certain LDC terms pertaining to "Boat Canopies.
Official interpretation upheld - Approved 3/2 (Commissioner Fiala and
Commissioner Henning opposed); staff to bring back direction for
alternatives and aesthetics relating to boat canopies - Consensus
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. V A-2005-AR-7444
Terry & Charlotte Rhodes, represented by McGarvey Custom Homes,
request a variance to reduce the east side yard from the required 30-foot
setback of the Rural Agricultural Mobile Home Overlay zoning (A-MHO)
district, to 21.1- feet to authorize replacement of an existing pool fence with
a proposed screen enclosure. The subject parcel is located at 11230 Five
Oaks Lane, further described as Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Lot 64,
Block E, Twin Eagles Subdivision Phase I, Plat Book 30, page 78 Collier
County, Florida.
Continued to October 11,2005 - Approved 4/1 (Commissioner Coletta
out)
Moved from Item #17 A
C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-04-AR-6700 A
Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals providing for the establishment
of two Conditional Uses in the "E" Estates zoning district for a group home,
and private school to serve the residents of the group home and program
participants per Table 2, Subsection 2.04.03 of the Collier County Land
Development Code for property located in Section 8, Township 50 South,
Page 4
September 27, 2005
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Resolution 2005-341 - Adopted wi changes 5/0
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2005-AR-7469
Richard and Frances Craig and CDN Properties, LLC, represented by Robert
Mulhere of R W A, Inc., in requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural
"A" zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development "MPUD"
zoning district to be known as Sonoma Oaks PUD, a mixed-use
development consisting of a maximum of 112 residential dwelling units and
120,000 square feet of commercial uses located on approximately 37.5 acres,
on the west side of Collier Boulevard, approximately 1/4 mile north of
Vanderbilt Beach Road, Section 34, Township 48 south, Range 26 east
Collier County, Florida.
Motion failed - 3/2 (Commissioners Henning and Halas opposed)
Resolution of Denial 2005-342 to be submitted
B. Approval of an amendment to the existing Flood Ordinance of Collier
County, Florida (Ordinance No. 86-28 as amended by Ordinance 87-80 and
Ordinance 90-31) to repeal and replace certain sections, add new sections,
adopt the new Flood Insurance Rate Maps prior to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's effective date of November 17, 2005, and add
provisions to improve the County's scoring in the Community Rating
System of the National Flood Insurance Program.
Ordinance 2005-51 -Adoption of the new Flood Insurance Rate Maps _
Adopted 5/0; Flood Rate Scoring System to be discussed at the CCPC
meeting of November 1, 2005 - Approved - 5/0
C. This item is beinf! continued to the October 11~ 2005 BCC Meetinf!. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6092: Benderson
Development Company, represented by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc.
and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel & Andress, requesting an
amendment to the Westport Commerce Center PUD for the purpose of
revising the PUD document and Master Plan to show a reduction in the
intensity of the commercial/retail and industrial square footage, delete the
Accommodations District land use, increase the amount of preserve area,
and changing the PUD reference to MPUD (Mixed Use PUD). The property
Page 5
September 27, 2005
is located on Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and Davis Boulevard, in Section
3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
96.3 acres. (Petitioner's request)
Motion to continue to the October 11, 2005 BCC Meeting - Approved
4/0 (Commissioner Coletta Absent)
D. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-2004-
AR-6207 MAC Builders, Inc., represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, of Talon
Management, Inc., requesting a rezone from the C-l and C-2 zoning districts
to the PUD Planned Unit Development zoning district to allow a maximum
of 86 multi-family dwelling units. The property, consisting of 10.76 acres, is
located on the northwest corner of Radio Road extension and Palm Springs
Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
Ordinance 2005-50 wlstipulations - Adopted - 4/1 (Commissioner
Coletta opposed)
E. This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. A request that the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopt an ordinance amending
Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development
Code (LDC) to add the amendments of LDC Special Cycle 2a, authorized by
the Board for the following purposes. Amendment of Section 2.03.07
Overlay Zoning Districts adds implementing provisions for three (3) new
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Bonuses outlined in the Growth
Management Plan (GMP) amendment CP-2004-4. Amendment of Section
2.03.08 is required to implement the "glitch" amendment CPSP-2003-11 to
the GMP as well as further implementing the TDR Bonus Credits and Rural
Village Standards as adopted in the GMP. Amendment of Section 10.02.13
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures is to add provisions for PUD
expiration and retirement of excess numbers of dwelling units.
Ordinance 2005-49 -- Adopted w/changes 5/0
Moved from Item #17E
F. To obtain Board of County Commissioners Approval to repeal Ordinance
90-30, as Amended, the Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Ordinance and
replace with Ordinance No. 05-_.
Continued to October 11, 2005 BCC Meeting - Approved - 5/0
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 6
September 27, 2005
A. Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory
Committee.
Resolution 2005-338 - Re-Appointing Cheryle L. Newman and Patricia
Spencer - Adopted wlwaiver of term limit - 5/0
B. Appointment of members to the Collier County Planning Commission.
Resolution 2005-339 - Re-Appointing Lindy Adelstein, Appointing,
Russell Tuff, Re-Appointing Paul Midney- Adopted - 5/0
C. Appointment of members to the Workforce Development Board, Region 24.
Resolution 2005-340 - Amy Garrard, Nina Velasco, Todd Hoffman and
Ken O'Leary - Adopted - 5/0; BCC would like an update report
presented to them
Continued to the October 11, 2005 BCC Meeting
D. The Annual Performance Appraisal for the County Attorney.
E. This Item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Discuss the taking by Eminent Domain
action of the land currently occupied by Caribbean Gardens and other
surrounding lands that would serve a public purpose. Provide guidance to
staff. (Commissioner Coyle)
Motion made to bond up to $40 million and let the Trust For Public
Lands make an offer of $59,913,333.00 for the property - Approved _
5/0
F. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Discussion of the RFP and subsequent
contract for the proposed expansion facility at the Golden Gate Library.
(Commissioner Henning)
To be brought back to a future BCC Meeting with staff's
recommendations, without any compromise to funding to all other
libraries - Approved - 4/1 (Commissioner Halas opposed)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item continued from the September 13~ 2005 BCC Meetinf!.
Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with The
District School Board of Collier County, Florida for 65 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed
$2,134,500. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator)
Page 7
September 27,2005
Approved wlstipulations - 3/2 (Commissioner Henning &
Commissioner Coyle opposed)
B. Discussion and review of the County's Noise Ordinance (Code of Laws and
Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article IV) as amended. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development and Environmental Services
Division)
Continued to the October 11, 2005 BCC Meeting - Approved 5/0
Continued to the October 11, 2005 BCC Meeting
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation of fee
simple interests and/or those perpetual or temporary easement interests
necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility
improvements required for the four-lane expansion of County Barn Road
from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Road. (Capital
Improvement Element No. 33, Project No. 60101). (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
D. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Recommendation to (1) consider three
lobbying firms, as reviewed by a staff selection committee, that responded to
RFP 05-3883 for Professional State Lobbyist Services; (2) choose one of the
finalists to represent Collier County; and (3) authorize the County Manager
to negotiate a contract with the selected firm. (Debbie Wight, Assistant to
the County Manager)
Appoint J. Keith Arnold & Associates - Approved 4/1 (Commissioner
Henning opposed)
Continued to the October 11, 2005 BCC Meeting
E. Review and approve the FY 2006 Annual Work Plan for the County
Manager.
F. Recommendation that the Board approve and authorize the Chairman to
execute an Agreement with McDonald Transit Associates, Inc. to provide
consolidated management for the Collier Area Transit and the Paratransit
Systems not to exceed $4,885,162.00 (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
Approved - 5/0
Moved from Item #16Kll
G. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve a
Page 8
September 27, 2005
Resolution Approving the 2006 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan, a
General Wage Adjustment (COLA) and Merit Increase for the Office of the
County Attorney.
To Be continued to the October 11, 2005 - Approved 5/0
Moved from Item #16El
H. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the 2006 Fiscal Year Pay
and Classification Plan, providing for a general wage adjustment and merit
increase and also to continue authorizing the creation of new classifications,
modification and/or deletion of classifications and assignment of pay ranges
from the proposed 2006 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan.
To be continued to the October 11, 2005 - Approved 5/0
Moved from Item #16B2
I. Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to Lease Agreement with
Maureen Moran, Inc.
Approved - 5/0
Moved from Item #1611- Dl
J. Memo from Commissioner Henning to Jim Mudd, County Manager,
regarding Golden Gate Library dated September 19,2005 with attachments
Motion to remove Item 16II-Dl- Approved 4/1 (Commissioner
Henning opposed); Memo will be filed in the Board of County
Commissioners office per Sue Filson
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Adopt a Resolution to Initiate Negotiation Proceedings With the South
Florida Water Management District and the State of Florida Division of
Lands Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 164.
Resolution 2005-343 - Adopted 5/0
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY ANDIOR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. This item to be heard at 3 :30 p.m. Consideration of a request for LDC
Page 9
September 27,2005
deviations for SoNa - SDP #7905, a redevelopment project within the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA.
Approved - 5/0
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Jim Mudd - To set up a CRA Joint workshop - Consensus
B. Commissioner Henning - concerning Jim Mudd, County Manager's
evaluation
C. Commissioner Henning - Impact Fee Task Force Meeting
D. Commissioner Coyle - Letter to County Manager for a workshop with
the Sheriff's Department on salary schedules
E. Commissioner Coletta - Dog available for adoption
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved andlor adopted with changes - 5/0
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities
for "Arthrex at Creekside".
W Irelease of Utilities Performance Bond
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for "Masters Reserve".
W Ireducing the Utilities Performance Bond
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for "Classic Plantation Estates Phase One".
W Ireducing the Utilities Performance Bond
4) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (public) and
drainage improvements for the roadway segment Orange Blossom
Drive from Airport Road to entrance of First Baptist
Church/Bridgewater Bay.
Resolution 2005-327
Page 10
September 27, 2005
5) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of 3500
Corporate Plaza, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
W Istipulations
6) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
Professional Village at "Northbrooke", approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
W Istipulations
7) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra
Parcel 117", approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
W Istipulations
8) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra
Parcel 118", approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
W Istipulations
9) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "IL Regalo
Replat", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
W Istipulations
10) Recommendation to approve an addendum to the Oak Haven
Apartments Agreement for Deferral of Collier County Impact Fees.
As Detailed in the Executive Summary
11) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to the 2004-2005
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) budget for the
purpose of recognizing additional entitlement funds received from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in Fund
121. ($137,000)
12) Recommendation to approve the application by Salazar Machine and
Page 11
September 27, 2005
Steel, Incorporated for the Job Creation Investment Program and the
Fee Payment Assistance Program. ($146,000)
To target high-wage companies that desire to relocate or expand
within the areas of Collier County
13) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving assignment and
change of control of the cable television franchise from Time Warner
Cable, Inc. to MOC HOLDCO II, Inc., an indirect wholly subsidiary
of Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc., pursuant to a
redemption agreement among the parties. (The voluminous filing
contains over 5000 pages, the full filing was not included in the
Board's printed agenda packet. A digital version is available for
viewing in the County Manager's Office, 3301 East Tamiami Trail,
Naples as well as Community Development, 2800 North Horseshoe
Drive, Naples)
Resolution 2005-328
14) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Summit
Place in Naples, Phase III, approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
W Istipulations
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve three (3) Adopt-A-Road Program
Agreements with (2) new roadway recognition signs at a total cost of
$150.00. The other signs already exist.
Copeland Civic Association, Jose Marti Educational Foundation
and Quail Communities Realty
Moved to Item #101
2) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to Lease Agreement
with Maureen Moran, Inc.
For leased space located under the Goodland Bridge
3) Recommendation to approve, sign and execute an agreement with the
State of Florida to participate in the Unified Certification Program
(UCP).
In order to receive Federal Transit Administration Grant funds
Page 12
September 27, 2005
for the transit system
4) Recommendation to approve the use of transportation disadvantaged
funds (427) to purchase a para-transit bus in the amount of $80,253
under State contract #FVPP-05-CA-4.
To purchase a para-transit bus utilizing transportation
disadvantaged fund
5) Recommendation to approve the purchase of Parcel Nos. 148A and
148C required for the construction of the six-laning of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) from Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee
Road. (Project No. 65061, Capital Improvement Element No. 37).
Fiscal Impact: $20,300.00.
As Detailed in the Executive Summary
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Budget Amendment recognizing revenue received from the South
Florida Water Management District under an agreement for a
Countywide GPS Network in the amount of $60,000.
To install, operate and maintain a Countywide GPS Network
7) Recommendation to award Bid No. 05-3861 - "Purchase of lime rock
and fill material, fixed term contract" for the estimated annual amount
of $500,000 to Apac Inc., Orangetree Mine, Florida Rock Industries,
Inc.
For use in grading and rebuilding Iimerock roadways and
shoulder repair on all County and State roadways
8) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3874 Golden Gate Blvd. and 13th
Street Landscape Maintenance to Advance Lawn and Landscaping
Services, Inc. in the amount of$67,629.80. (Project #630413)
9) Recommendation to approve the purchase of Parcel No. 148B
required for the construction of the six-laning of Collier Boulevard
(CR 951) from Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road. (Project
No. 65061, Capital Improvement Element No. 37). Fiscal Impact:
$10,700.00
As Detailed in the Executive Summary
10) Recommendation to award Collier County Bid No 05-3855 - Purchase
Page 13
September 27, 2005
and Delivery of Fungicides, Herbicides and Insecticides to the
following bidders: 1 )Helena Chemical Company (Primary), and 2)Pro
Source One (Secondary). ($200,000)
11) Recommendation to authorize staff to approve one (1) Work Order for
Bonness, Inc. for Construction of Golden Gate Beautification MSTU
Sunshine Boulevard Landscape Improvements Project (Contract #05-
3773 'Annual Contract for Roadways Contractors') for a base amount
of$301,691.31 and contingency of$16,848.82 for a total of
$318,540.13.
For the curbing and accent lighting for Sunshine Boulevard
12) Recommendation to approve budget amendments in the amount of
$300,000 for Port of the Isles community where $300,000.00 will be
reimbursed through the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
Federal Enhancement program.
Resolution 2005-329
13) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a budget amendment to recognize additional revenue for the Collier
County Transportation Pathways Program Project No. 69081 in the
amount of$70,302.77.
As Detailed in the Executive Summary
14) Recommendation to accept a Quitclaim Deed for local streets in
Pelican Bay.
For various rights-of-way that had been dedicated to the County
on plats
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3740R to Ferguson Enterprises,
Incorporated and Hughes Supply, Incorporated for purchase of
backflow prevention assemblies and associated materials in the
amount of $300,000.
For use in the water distribution system
2) Recommendation to award Work Order number UC-117 to Kyle
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $375,580.00 for construction of
the extension of the Water Main on White Lake Boulevard, Project
Page 14
September 27, 2005
59005.
To enhance Solid Waste operations by supplying potable water to
existing and proposed Landfill Facilities
3) Recommendation to approve the Satisfactions of Notice of Claim of
Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee. Fiscal impact is $30.00
to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1992
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $30.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
Resolution 2005-330
5) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said lien is satisfied in full for the 1993 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
Resolution 2005-331
6) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1994
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $30.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
Resolution 2005-332
7) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1995
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $30.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
Resolution 2005-333
8) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1996
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Page 15
September 27, 2005
Fiscal impact is $58.50 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
Resolution 2005-334
9) Recommend BCC approve the annual rate resolution to set landfill
tipping fees, recycling center fees, residential annual assessments and
commercial waste collection fees for FY 2005/2006. Total fees
budgeted to be collected from rates approved with this resolution are
included in the FY 2006 budgets for solid waste disposal ((Fund 470)
and mandatory trash collection (fund 473).
Resolution 2005-335
10) Recommendation to approve an eight (8) month extension, through
May 9, 2006, for the existing Deep Injection Well Construction
Contract 01-3193 with Youngquist Brothers, Inc.
To construct, repair, and maintain the County's deep injection
wells
11) Recommendation to approve the Satisfaction for a certain Water
andlor Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreement. Fiscal impact is $18.50
to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
12) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to transfer funds
in the amount of$200,000 from project 725101, the North County
Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) Process Control Building
Expansion to project 725091, the South County Water Reclamation
Facility (SCWRF) Process Control Building Expansion.
To complete construction for expanding and modernizing the
existing process control building at the SCWRF to accommodate
the technical needs imposed by the new plant expansion
13) Recommendation to approve a "Consent to Encroachment" for utility
easements lying within Summerwind Apartments, Phase I and Phase
II.
For water lines to provide service to the development
14) Recommendation to award Contract 05-3785 "Fixed Term Utility
Engineering Services" to thirteen (13) firms.
As Detailed in the Executive Summary
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 16
September 27, 2005
1) Recommendation to approve the FY 06 Agreement with the David
Lawrence Center, Inc. for $989, I 00
To support behavioral health and substance abuse programs
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners sign an
agreement with the Agency for Health Care Administration for
participation in the Upper Payment Limit Program for services
provided on behalf of the Human Services Department, County Health
Department, and David Lawrence Center to generate an additional
$481,100 in federal matching funds.
To provide enhanced services to low-income individuals
3) Recommendation to approve the attached budget amendments
recognizing a $68,000 donation from the Marco Island Chapter,
Friends of the Library, and transferring $200,000 from Library Trust
Fund (612) to Library Capital Fund (307) for the construction of Rose
Hall at Marco Island Branch Library.
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending parts of Article IV
of the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department Facilities and
Outdoor Areas License and Fee Policy.
Resolution 2005-336
5) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
revenue in the amount of $38,706 from an insurance payment
covering damage to the shade structure at Sugden Regional Park ski
area.
To repair a shade structure at Sugden Regional Park
Amphitheatre that was damaged during a storm
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Moved to Item #10H
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the 2006 Fiscal
Year Pay and Classification Plan, providing for a general wage
adjustment and merit increase and also to continue authorizing the
creation of new classifications, modification and/or deletion of
classifications and assignment of pay ranges from the proposed 2006
Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan.
Page 17
September 27, 2005
2) Recommendation that the Board of Commissioners waive the
Purchasing Policy as allowed under Section VII.G. of the policy and
approve a retention agreement with the law firm of Langston, Hess,
Bolton, Shepard, & Augustine P.A. and the law firm of Kelley,
Stiffler, & Thomas PLLC, to defend certain Workers Compensation
litigation cases on behalf of the County and the County's excess
. .
msurance carrIers.
As Detailed in the Executive Summary
3) Report and ratify Property, Casualty, Workers Compensation and
Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the Risk Management
Director pursuant to Resolution # 2004-15 for the third quarter of FY
05.
To settle certain damages claims against Collier County and to
authorize the payment of investigation and adjustment expenses
4) Recommendation to Award RFP #05-3747R "Indoor Air Quality
Service" to Pure Air Control Services for Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)
testing, cleaning and remediation services.
To maintain over 660 separate county facilities that requires
continual inspection, repair and maintenance
5) Recommendation to approve the purchase of Property, Casualty,
Automobile, Workers Compensation and ancillary insurance and
related services for FY 2006.
As Detailed in the Executive Summary
6) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for the conveyance of
GAC Trust Reserved Land to the Collier County Parks & Recreation
Department, at a cost not to exceed $20.
As Detailed in the Executive Summary
7) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to License
Agreement with St. Matthews House, Inc., for the continued use of
parking spaces at the Government Center, at a term revenue of$50.
So their food program may continue to operate without being in
violation of County Code
8) Recommendation to approve the attached Lease Agreement for office
space on South Horseshoe Drive and associated expenses, including
Page 18
September 27, 2005
rental, common area maintenance, renovations, and relocation of
Health, EMS and IT Departments offices, at a first years cost not to
exceed $396,000.
To provide additional office space for the Health Department,
Community Development and Environmental Services Division
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommend approval of First Amendment to Contract No. 03-3537
with Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc. for an increase in the
monthly fee to $25,000.00 per month or $300,000.00 annually to
cover all professional time, media and production up to $2,000,000.00
annually.
2) Recommendation to approve First Amendment to the 2004/2005
Tourism Agreement Between Collier County and the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida, Inc.
Requesting a I-year extension to September 30, 2006 for the
completion of the Category "C" grant for the exhibit called
Everglades: A work in progress at the Conservancy Nature
Center.
3) City of Naples Category A Grant Application Amendment for Doctors
Pass Dredging Project 905501 in the amount of$125,000.
To equal the bid price for the dredging of Doctors Pass
4) Approval of budget amendments.
5) Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
requesting the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to
include the funding for the City of Naples/Collier County Beach
Renourishment Project in the Fiscal Year 2005/06 Legislative budget
request.
Resolution 2005-337
6) Recommend Approval of Coastal Planning and Engineering Time and
Material, Not- To-Exceed Proposal for $35,000 to study and
recommend the most effective approach to permit and re-nourish
Clam Pass Beach Park. (Project 900281)
Page 19
September 27, 2005
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY ANDIOR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Continued to the October 11, 2005 BCC Meeting
1) Recommendation to approve a 3.9 percent ($3,490.50) cost of living
increase effective October 1, 2005 and a $5000 bonus to be paid on
September 30, 2005 to the Executive Director of the Collier County
Airport Authority, Theresa M. Cook.
2) To approve a budget amendment for Fund 187 Bayshore Gateway
Triangle CRA to transfer $20,992 to Fund 112 (Davis Blvd Phase I
Irrigation Renovation Project #60098) to reimburse the County for the
installation of a portion of a landscape and irrigation improvement
project in the Davis Blvd medians at the Brookside Drive intersection.
3) To approve a budget amendment for Fund 187 Bayshore Gateway
Triangle CRA (Reserve for Capital) to transfer $12,000 to Fund 112
(Davis Blvd Phase I Irrigation Renovation Project #60098) to
reimburse the County for the installation of a landscape and irrigation
project at the US41 / Davis Blvd intersection.
4) To approve a Fund 187 Bayshore Gateway Triangle Budget
Amendment of $3,000 from reserves to acquire computer systems.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose: to attend the 2005
NAACP Annual Freedom Fund Banquet on October 15,2005 in the
amount of$55.00, to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
To be held at the Elks Lodge, 3950 Radio Road, Naples, Florida
2) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the One by One Leadership Foundation of
Southwest Florida Meeting/Luncheon on September 16, 2005 and is
requesting reimbursement in the amount of $1 0.00 to be paid from his
travel budget.
To be held at the One Stop Center, 750 5th Street South,
Page 20
September 27,2005
Immokalee, Florida
3) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the Southwest Florida Workforce
Development Board's Annual Retreat Awards Dinner on September
16,2005 and is requesting reimbursement in the amount of$25.00 to
be paid from his travel budget.
To be held at the Marco Island Hilton Beach Resort, 560 South
Collier Boulevard, Marco Island, Florida
4) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the "Wake Up Naples Breakfast" sponsored
by the Naples Chamber of Commerce, on September 21, 2005 and is
requesting reimbursement in the amount of$17.00, to be paid from
his travel budget.
To be held at The Naples Hilton, 5111 Tamiami Trail N, Naples,
Florida
Moved Section #D-l to Item #10J
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence to file for record with action as
directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to approve writing off Accounts Receivable in the
amount of $514,328.80 to comply with Auditor recommendations
included in the Management Letter of the Fiscal Year 2004 Collier
County Annual Audit.
As Detailed in the Executive Summary
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve Agreed Order Awarding Engineering
Expert Fees & Costs of$9,250 for P. 141,841, & 143 in the case
Collier County v. Primera Iglesia Cristiana Manantial De Vida, Case
No. 03-2372-CA (Golden Gate Pkwy Project 60027).(Fiscal Impact
$9,250)
Page 21
September 27, 2005
2) Recommendation to approve Agreed Order A warding Engineering
Expert Fees & Costs for $3,650 for Parcels 142, 742A, 742B, & 942
in Collier County v. Parkway Community Church of God, Case No.
03-2374-CA (Golden Gate Pkwy Project 60027).(Fiscal Impact
$3,650)
3) Consider Proposed Settlement Agreement in reference to Florida
State Underground, Inc. v. Collier County, Case No. 03-4177-CA,
now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida
and give direction to County Attorney regarding the litigation.
County to release a retainage in the amount of $113,877.14 to FSU
without interest
4) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcels 118 and 718 in the lawsuit
styled Collier County v. Rafael Liy, et al., Case No. 05-752-CA
(Collier Blvd 951 Project 65061 ).(Fiscal Impact $54,397.50)
5) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be Drafted Incorporating the Same
Terms and Conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the
Amount of $124,670.00 for the Acquisition of Parcels 108 and 708 in
the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Louis Cerminara, et ale Case No.
05-0620-CA (County Road 951 Project No. 65061). (Fiscal Impact:
$58,987.38)
6) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be Drafted Incorporating the Same
Terms and Conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the
Amount of $221 ,300.00 for the Acquisition of Parcels 107 and 707 in
the Lawsuit Styled Collier County V. Louis Cerminara, et at. Case No.
05-0620-CA (County Road 951 Project No. 65061). (Fiscal Impact:
$73,300.26)
7) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be Drafted Incorporating the Same
Terms and Conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the
Amount of$129,500.00 for the Acquisition of Parcels 106 and 706 in
the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Louis Cerminara, et ale Case No.
05-0620-CA (County Road 951 Project No. 65061). (Fiscal Impact:
Page 22
September 27, 2005
$63,186.22)
8) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be Drafted Incorporating the Same
Terms and Conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the
Amount of$156,500.00 for the Acquisition of Parcels 109 and 709 in
the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Susan C. Hallock, et ale Case
No. 05-0646-CA (County Road 951 Project No. 65061). (Fiscal
Impact: $70,777.04)
Continued to October 11, 2005 meeting
9) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit
after October 1, 2005 compelling JC Drainfield Repair, Inc., its
principles, affiliate entities or persons, or any combination thereof, to
comply with Collier County Ordinance No. 03-18, codified as Chapter
134, Article IX of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances,
including but not limited to, the pursuit of reimbursement of all costs
and fees due and owing to Collier County under Chapter 134, Article
IX and as otherwise provided by law.
10) Recommendation to Approve a Budget Amendment in the Amount of
$118,567.35 to Transfer the Balance of the Funds from Fund 652
Reserves to Its Operating Budget and to Transfer the Total Amount
Collected in Excess of $1 08,309.66 (the Statutorily Mandated Amount
that the Board of County Commissioners Must Fund the Legal Aid
Society).
Moved to Item #10G
11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve a
Resolution Approving the 2006 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification
Plan, a General Wage Adjustment (COLA) and Merit Increase for the
Office of the County Attorney.
12) Recommendation to Approve Settlement Pre-Litigation and Prior to
Mediation Pursuant to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures
in Countywide Paved Shoulders and Sidewalk Improvements Contract
03-3528 With Better Roads, Inc. for Full and Final Settlement of All
Outstanding Liquidated Damages Claims in the Amount of
$10,000.00 to be Paid to Better Roads, Inc.
Page 23
September 27, 2005
13) Recommendation to Approve Settlement Prior to Arbitration-
Mediation in the Lawsuit Entitled: CPOC REALTY v. THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, IN THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO.: 04-5636-CA FOR $20,000.00.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
Moved to Item #7C
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-04-AR-6700 A
Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals providing for the establishment
of two Conditional Uses in the "E" Estates zoning district for a group home,
and private school to serve the residents of the group home and program
participants per Table 2, Subsection 2.04.03 of the Collier County Land
Development Code for property located in Section 8, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance amending Schedule Four of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance), to reflect the amended rates set forth
in the impact fee study, providing for the incorporation by reference of the
impact fee study entitled Correctional Impact Fee Study, Collier County,
Florida, establishing methodology for the annual indexing adjustment to the
Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Rates, and providing for a delayed
effective date of November 1,2005.
Page 24
September 27,2005
Ordinance 2005-47
C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2003-AR-3588:
Frank Clesen & Sons, Inc., represented by William L. Hoover, of Hoover
Planning and Development, Inc., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) to
amend the Clesen PUD, pursuant to the sunsetting provisions of the LDC, to
update the PUD document in compliance with the current LDC PUD
requirements, for property located on the north side of Pine Ridge Road,
approximately 1,000 feet east of the Whippoorwill Lane and Pine Ridge
Road intersection, in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County Florida. This property consists of 4.33 acres
Ordinance 2005-48
Continued to the October 11, 2005 BCC Meeting
D. This item was continued from the September 13~ 2005 BCC Meetinf!. To
obtain Board of County Commissioner approval to repeal and replace the
Ordinance establishing the Code Enforcement Board and the Nuisance
Abatement Board.
Moved to Item #8F
E. To obtain Board of County Commissioners Approval to repeal Ordinance
90-30, as Amended, the Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Ordinance and
replace with Ordinance No. 05-_.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 25
September 27, 2005
September 27, 2005
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, ladies and
gentlemen.
Welcome to the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners.
Would you please stand for the invocation by the Reverend Paul
Getter of the Faith Apostolic Church.
REVEREND GETTER: Let us all bow our heads as we pray this
mornIng.
Lord Jesus, we're so thankful that we could come here gathered
together in your name. Ask us, Jesus, that you would touch our great
community leaders, give them the wisdom, the insight they need to
take decisions for you, Lord. Ask you, God, that we would place you
first and foremost in all things.
Let your will be done here in this meeting. In Jesus' name we
pray, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Remain standing for the Pledge of
Allegiance, please.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Attorney, do you have any changes to our agenda today?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I may have a comment. I think that Mr.
Mudd is prepared to run through essentially all the changes. I have to
check on one thing, and if you could, I guess, come back to me in a
couple moments, we'll see if there's one more item or not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Mudd?
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY AND CONSENT AGENDA- APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Page 2
September 27, 2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners meeting,
September 27, 2005.
Item 9D, continue to the October 11, 2005, BCC meeting. It's the
annual performance appraisal for the county attorney, and that's at
Commissioner Coyle's request.
The next item is item 10C. Continue to the October 11, 2005,
BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing
the condemnation of fee simple interest and/or those perpetual or
temporary easement interests necessary for the construction of
roadway, drainage, and utility improvements required for the four-lane
expansion of County Barn Road from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake
Hammock. It's capital improvement element number 33, project
60101, and that's at staffs request.
The next item is item 10E. Continue to the October 11, 2005,
BCC meeting. Review and approve the FY-2006 annual work plan
for the county manager, and that's at Commissioner Coyle's request.
The next item is item 1 OF. Attachment number 4, page 30 of 30,
the umbrella liability amount should be $10 million rather than $20
million. Corrections have been made to the original documents. And
that's at staffs request.
Next item is item 10 -- or excuse me. Next item is 12A. The
first paragraph of the executive summary should read "residents,"
rather than "residence," okay. And residents is with a T -S, and that's
what it should be. People that actually live in the house, and that's at
Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is item 10 -- 16AI0. Again, item 16AI0. In the
attachment addendum to agreement for waiver of deferral of the
Collier County impact fees, page 3, first paragraph, 2 and -- second
and third lines, the text, the appendix to the impact fee ordinance has
been struck through and replaced with Article V of Chapter 74 of the
Page 3
September 27, 2005
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, which is the Collier
County consolidated impact fee ordinance.
Page 3, first paragraph, tenth line, the words appendix to the
impact fee ordinance were deleted and replaced by the words
provisions cited above.
Page 3, second paragraph D, the fifteenth and sixteenth lines, the
word, Collier County consolidated were added, and that's at staffs
request.
The next item is item 16B2, and move that to 101, and that is a
recommendation to approve a first amendment to lease agreement
with Maureen Moran, Inc., and that's at Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is item 16B4. The agenda index title should read,
recommendation to approve the use of transportation disadvantaged
funds, which is 427, rather than transportation disadvantaged funds,
fund 126, and that's at staffs request.
Next item is item 16B 10. The agenda index title should read,
purchase and delivery of fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides rather
than fungicides, pesticides, and insecticides, and that's at staffs
request.
Item 16D4. At the September 22nd BCC budget public hearing,
the BCC voted to denied the institution of the $20 beach parking fee;
therefore necessitating a change in the fee policy and resolution.
Copies of the new fee policy and resolution were made available to
the board yesterday, and that's at staffs request.
Item 16E1, move to 10H, and that's a recommendation to adopt a
resolution approving the 2006 fiscal year pay and classification plan
providing for a general wage adjustment and merit increase and also to
continue authorizing the creation of new classifications, modification
and/or deletion of classifications, and assignment of pay raises from
the proposed 2006 fiscal year pay end classification plan, and that
item moved at Commissioner Coyle's request.
The next item is item 16E2. The agenda index should read, law
Page 4
September 27,2005
firm of Langston, Hess, Bolton, Shepard & Augustine, P .A.
Augustine was omitted from the title, and that was at staffs request.
Next item is item 16Gl. Continue to the October 11,2005, BCC
meeting, and that was a recommendation to approve a 3.9 percent,
which is $3,490.50, cost of living increase, effective October 1, 2005,
and a $5,000 bonus to be paid in September 30, 2005, to the executive
director of the Collier County Airport Authority, Theresa M. Cook.
And that item was being asked to be continued by Commissioner
Coyle.
Next item is item 16K3. It's a recommendation, should read that
the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approve the
settlement agreement, in brackets, agreement provided for the record,
and that's at staffs request.
Item 16K9, it's to continue to October 11, 2005, BCC meeting.
It's a recommendation to authorize the county attorney to file a lawsuit
after October 1, 2005, compelling JC Drainfield Repair, Inc., its
principals, affiliate entities or persons, or any combination thereof, to
comply with Collier County ordinance number 03-18, codified as
Chapter 134, Article IX of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, including but not limited to, the pursuit of reimbursement
of all costs and fees due and owing to Collier County under Chapter
134, Article IX, and as otherwise provided by law, and that item is
being asked to be continued by Commissioner Coletta.
Next item is item 16K11, move to the regular agenda, item lOG.
It's a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners approve
a resolution approving the 2006 fiscal year pay and classification plan.
A general wage adjustment (COLA) and merit increase for the office
of the county attorney. That item is asked to be moved at
Commissioner Coyle's request.
The next item is item 17 A, and that's to move to the regular
agenda item 7C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
Page 5
September 27, 2005
It's conditional use 04-AR-6700, a resolution of the Board of
Zoning Appeals providing for the establishment of two conditional
uses in the "E" Estates zoning district for a group home and a private
school to serve the residents of the group home and program
participants per table two, section 2.04.03 of the Collier County Land
Development Code for property located in Section 8, Township 50
south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. That item is being
moved at Commissioner Fiala's request.
Next item is item 17E, and that is to move to the regular agenda,
item 8F, and that's to obtain Board of County Commissioners'
approval to repeal ordinance 90-30, as amended, the solid waste
collection and disposal ordinance and replace with ordinance number
05-, to be determined based on the board's action today, and that item
is being moved at Commissioner Henning's request.
There are a number of time certain items today.
The first is item 8E, and that has to do with the TDR -- the TDR
bonuses and the ghost PUD units, and that item, 8E, will been heard at
11 a.m.
The next item is item 9E, to be heard at one p.m., and that has to
do with eminent domain for the Caribbean Gardens.
Next item is item 9F to be heard at 10 a.m., and that's a
discussion of the RFP and subsequent contract for the proposed
expansion facility of the Golden Gate Library.
Next item is item laD, to be heard at four p.m., and that's a
recommendation to consider three lobbying firms for our state
lobbyists. Again, that item's 10D. It will be heard at four p.m.
The next item is item 14(1). It should have been 14A, so it was a
misprint on our agenda, to be heard at 3:30, and that's a consideration
of a request for land development code deviations for the SoNa SDP
number 7905, a redevelopment project within the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle eRA.
And one last note, item 16F 1. The contract with Paradise
Page 6
September 27, 2005
Advertising was for three years, and we are renewing the final year
with a suggested amendment. It is our plan to put this advertising and
marketing services contract out for bid next summer at the end of the
current three-year agreement, and that note was made at staffs
request.
That's all I have, sir,
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Mudd.
Any further questions or changes by board members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. I would like to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need some clarification and
discussion of -- from the county attorney of what we discussed last
night. And just a clarification on the consent items where it says, legal
consideration. Is it the county attorney's opinion that he will make
sure that all matters under -- with legal consideration will have your
review before the board signs off on it?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. And as you know, with the, call it,
compressed schedule we have between board meetings, logistically it's
difficult to review everything in the context of the creation of the legal
-- of the legal considerations on the executive summary.
But what I have indicated to you is -- and spoken with Mr. Coyle
as well separately -- that the intention is that the legal considerations
for the most part will provide the criteria that the board needs to make
its informed decision from the legal aspect, and that we will be
working, continue to work with county manager and particularly
development services so that those criteria are in there and that we
have signed off, approved, reviewed, and accepted the language that's
in there.
Some of it will become a little bit rote in the sense that the same
Page 7
September 27, 2005
issues will come up with similar, same language.
Additionally, assurances for you, Commissioners, are that the
county attorney reviews all agenda items in a couple different ways
prior to the board meeting, one in concert with the manager, and then
in our own staff meetings. And it's our duty to catch issues and
problems that have not been shown in the printed agenda.
The executive summaries, however, it's a -- going to take a very
coordinated job to make sure that we do that. But I will make every
effort, and I think that we can achieve what we're looking for so that
you have the assurance that the county attorney, even at the executive
summary level, has reviewed and placed his -- the office information
in there by us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but the second item is
discussion we had on K.
MR. WEIGEL: You're right. On K3, this is one we've made a
correction for the record. This has to do with board being asking to
approve the settlement of a lawsuit with Florida State Underground.
And, again, additional information for the record is that this
settlement will entail the board releasing retainage that we have held
without interest, but additionally also involves the settlement of claims
of Florida State Underground against us, our counterclaim against
them would be settled, but, perhaps, most importantly is that in the
execution or administration of the settlement -- again, this is item
16K3 -- the Board of County Commissioners will be authorizing, the
staff will be administering to the protection of the subcontractor or
subcontractors who may not have been paid up to this point in time.
It will be administered by either having affidavits from the
subcontractors indicating that they have been paid as well as affidavits
from the prime contractor, FSU, or, secondly, by the cutting of dual
checks where they are made out to both the prime contractor and
subcontractor, therefore, assuring the payment of the subcontractor for
Page 8
September 27,2005
the appropriate amounts due.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, on my agenda it
says this is to be continued; is that true?
MR. WEIGEL: Which item is that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 16K3.
MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Somebody marked it
continued.
MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't want it continued.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The settlement for the JC --
MR. WEIGEL: Drainfield.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Drainfield is being continued.
MR. WEIGEL: That's a different item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think the county attorney addressed
two different subjects for Commission Henning. I think that might
have been the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This was underground -- Florida
State versus Underground. Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I had asked if I might have the
opportunity to come back to the board in regard to agenda changes,
and I'm ready to advise and request, if I may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
MR. WEIGEL: All right, thank you.
On your summary agenda, item 17D, is the draft ordinance
replacement for the Code Enforcement Board Nuisance Abatement
Board ordinances. There is a paragraph to be clarified, switched out,
on that item. The information is not apparently present at the moment.
So the board would have its choice of either continuing this to the
next meeting or -- and I do not know if there is or is not anyone here
Page 9
September 27, 2005
to hear that item in the audience, or they could, in fact, move it to
regular agenda.
As far as reading the revised paragraph into the record, we'd
probably be two minutes or less if that were to be changed on the
agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't have the information available
at the present time?
MR. WEIGEL: I do not, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is going to be a very business day.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would prefer to see it moved to the next
meeting.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are there any objections by BCC?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then County Manager, if you could
move that to the next meeting, and then we'll get the information in
sufficient time to read it and understand it.
Do the commissioners have any other questions or changes to the
agenda?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Hearing none, is there--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like to ask that 1611 be
pulled in relationship to maybe discussion of D9, I believe it is, or D 1 ,
excuse me. Communications between the county manager and one of
the commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, can you make
that notation?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That will become what item?
Page 10
September 27, 2005
MR. MUDD: Sir, that will become J; lOJ, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 10J, okay.
Okay. Any other comments or changes by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do I hear a motion for approval of the
agenda as modified of the regular, consent, and summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second
by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Now, could we have ex parte disclosure for the summary agenda.
We'll start with Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Just a second here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no disclosure on the
summary agenda, and I have no other, further changes to make to
today's consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have no disclosures on the
summary agenda and no further changes.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No disclosures, no changes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
Page 11
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
October 11. 2005
Item 4E - Continue to October 25.2005 BCC meetina: Proclamation designating October 11,
2005, as Mr. James Rozzi Day. (Staff's request.)
Add On Item #4G: Proclamation to designate October 19, 2005 as The Naples Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce Hispanic Heritage Day. To be accepted by Valaree Maxwell, President,
Naples Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
Withdraw Item 6B: Public Petition request by Jeanne Benefico and Lydia Botten to discuss fee
structure for beach parking. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 16A13: Please note that within the cooperative agreement ofthis item, "Collier County
Government" shall be replaced in all instances by the words "Collier County Board of County
Commissioners". (Staff's request.)
Item 16A20 - Move to 10K: Recommendation to approve the application by PACE Center for
Girls. Incorporated for the Job Creation Investment Program and the Advanced Broadband
Infrastructure Investment Program. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Item 16A21 - Move to 10L: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida adopt a Resolution approving an application for a Charitable
Organization Impact Fee Waiver, in accordance with Section 74-203(i) of Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance) in the amount of $42,966.29, for Pace Center for Girls, Incorporated. (Commissioner
Henning's request.)
Item 16B2 - Continued to the 10/25/05 BCC meetina: Recommendation to authorize staff to
enter into a Work Order in the amount of $176,548 with Johnson Engineering, Inc., for the
design, permitting and construction engineering and inspection services of the Florida Power &
Light (FP&L) Greenway from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Radio Road, Project #69081.
(Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
These items are to be heard consecutivelv beainnina at 10:00 a.m.:
Item 10A: This item was continued from the September 27, 2005 BCC meeting.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a resolution approving the
2006 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan, a General Wage Adjustment (COLA) and Merit
increase for the Office of the County Attorney.
Item 10B: This item continued from the September 27,2005 BCC meeting. Recommendation to
adopt a resolution approving the 2006 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan, providing for a
general wage adjustment and merit increase retroactive to September 17, 2005 (the first day of
the first pay period in Fiscal Year 2006) and also to continue authorizing the creation of new
classifications, modification and/or deletion of classifications and assignment of pay ranges
from the proposed 2006 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan.
Item 9G: This item continued from the September 27,2005 BCC meeting. The Annual
Performance Appraisal for the County Attorney.
Item 9K: The Annual Performance Appraisal for the County Manager.
Item 14A: This item continued from the September 27,2005 BCC meeting. Recommendation to
approve a 3.9 percent ($3,490.50) cost of living increase retroactive to September 17, 2005 (the
first day of the first pay period in Fiscal Year 2006) and a $5,000 bonus to the Executive Director
of the Collier County Airport Authority, Theresa M. Cook.
Item 10H to be heard at 11:00 a.m.: Recommendation to discuss the conceptual plans and
financial implications for a new 17,000 square foot library adjacent to the existing Golden Gate
Library (Project 54261).
September 27, 2005
Items #2B & Item #2C
THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 25, 2005 BCC/HURRICANE
KATRINA EMERGENCY MEETING; THE AUGUST 27,2005
BCC/HURRICANE KATRINA EMERGENCY MEETING-
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Now, I'd like to get a motion for either approval or modification
of the minutes of the August 25,2005, BCC Hurricane Katrina
emergency meeting and the August 27,2005, BCC Hurricane Katrina
Emergency meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas has moved
for approval of the minutes as written.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor please signify by saying.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much.
And that brings us to service awards for our outstanding
employees.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could interrupt for just one
second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #8C
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE OCTOBER 11,2005 BCC
Page 12
September 27, 2005
MEETING; THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS
TO BE SWORN IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE
PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-
6092: BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
REPRESENTED BY AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC.
AND R. BRUCE ANDERSON, EXQUlRE OF ROETZEL &
ANDRESS, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
WESTPORT COMMERCE CENTER PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REVISING THE PUD DOCUMENT AND MASTER PLAN TO
SHOW A REDUCTION IN THE INTENSITY OF THE
COMMERCIAL/TRAIL AND INDUSTRIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE,
DELETE THE ACCOMMODATIONS DISTRICT LAND USE,
INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF PRESERVE AREA, AND
CHANGING THE PUD REFERENCE TO MPUD (MIXED PUD).
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON COLLIER BOULEVARD
(C.R. 951) AND DAVIS BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 3,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RNAGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 96.3 ACRES. (PETITIONER'S
REQUEST) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Advertised public hearing 8C, the petitioner is
asking for this item to be continued until the October 11, 2005,
meeting. This has to do with the Benderson Development Company at
Westport Commerce Center PUD. It was advertised for today. We
need a board motion to continue this particular item and maybe we
can clear some folks out of here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Reference to item 8C on the
agenda, motion by Commissioner Halas to continue it to October 11,
2005, BCC meeting, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
Page 13
September 27,2005
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Okay.
Item #3A & #3B
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, do you want to do the service
awards down here or do you want to do them from up here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have how many?
MR. MUDD: You have five total, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Five. Let's do them down there.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
You have all the awards down there, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're down there.
MR. MUDD: This is paragraph 3, services awards, and this has
to do with employee service awards. The first category is our 20-year
recipient.
The first is Nancy Frye from transportation operations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for operating our
transportation.
MS. FRYE: Thank you.
Page 14
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice to meet you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations, and thanks for
your dedicated work.
MR. MUDD: Could we get a picture, please.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 20-year recipient is Erin Hall from
transportation road maintenance.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for all your dedicated work.
MS. HALL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thanks for all your dedicated
work.
MR. MUDD: Ifwe could get a picture, please.
Thank you.
(Applause. )
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to our 30-year
employees. The first recipient is Denise Luhan (phonetic) Brandton
from University Extension Services.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, Denise.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good to see you.
MR. OCHS: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Get a picture.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
MR. MUDD: The next 30-year awardee is Murdo Smith from
Page 15
September 27,2005
parks and recreation.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Think you're a little popular?
Thanks for all the work you do, all the hard work you do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How much are you going to charge
me for your autograph?
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 30-year recipient is Edward Torroni from
parks and recreation.
(Applause.)
MR. TORRONI: Thank you, sir, appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You started when you were 12.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your dedicated
service of 30 years.
MR. MUDD: Get your picture, Ed.
And if you'd just wait a minute.
Murdo, are you pitch or are you put?
MR. TORRONI: I'm pitch.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Murdo asked ifhe could get a group -- ifhe
could get a group picture.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 27,2005, AS
COLLIER COUNTY WWII VETERANS ' DAY TO BE ACCEPTED
BY GARY SHANABARGER, COMMANDANT, SENIOR
MARINE OF THE MARINE CORPS LEAGUE OF NAPLES; JIM
ELSON, VETERANS COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY; PETER
Page 16
September 27, 2005
KRALEY, VETERAN SERVICES DEPARMENT AND JACK
HILD, 14TH AIR FORCE-FLYING TIGERS WORLD WAR II
VETERAN - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to proclamations,
and that's paragraph 4A. The first proclamation is a proclamation
designating September 27,2005, as the Collier County World War II
Veterans' Day, to be accepted by Gary Shanabarger, Commandant of
the -- and senior marine of the Marine Corps League of Naples; Jim
Elson, the Veterans Council of Collier County; Peter Kraley, the
Veterans Service Department; and Jack Hild of the 14th Air Force
Flying Tigers World War II Veterans.
If you could please come up, come forward, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We want just those four or everybody?
MR. ELSON: No, we want everybody.
MR. MUDD: Bring up everybody.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's get all the veterans up here today.
Good to see you, Jim. How are you doing?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Come on up here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi, how are you? Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It sure is good to see so many veterans
out here today. Do we have them all? Okay, good.
Okay. I'm going to read this proclamation.
Whereas, in an effort to preserve the memories of our local
World War II veterans so future generations can hear firsthand the
sacrifices made by the greatest generation, the Collier County
Communication and Customer Relations Department worked with
local veterans organizations and other county departments to identify
Collier County World War II veterans and coordinate interviews to
record their war experiences on audiotape; and,
Whereas, the goal of this oral history project is to capture the
memories of these veterans and share with the community personal
Page 1 7
September 27, 2005
stories that reflect the tremendous sacrifices this generation made so
that we could continue to live in a free nation; and,
Whereas, to date, nearly 1 00 World War II veterans have signed
up to participate in the World War II Capture Living History Proj ect,
and more than 60 interviews have been conducted; and,
Whereas, all interviews were conducted by 10 volunteers, most
of whom were veterans themselves. These volunteers dedicated more
than 150 hours to this project. All of the volunteers went out of their
way to rearrange their schedules to accommodate the project's needs,
often going above and beyond what was asked of them, including
picking up World War II veterans from their homes and driving them
to the Collier County Government Center to ensure that they could
participate in the project; and,
Whereas, a W odd War II Capture Living History Website linked
to Collier County government's site was developed to display
information regarding the biographical information about each veteran
along with segments of their interviews; and,
Whereas, Collier County residents wish to express appreciation
to all World War II veterans for their unselfish service to this great
nation and hope this proj ect serves as a small token of our admiration
and gratitude to the greatest generation.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that September 27,2005,
be designated as Collier County World War II Veterans Day.
Done and ordered this 27th day of September, 2005, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle,
Chairman.
Members of the board, I make a motion we accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
Page 18
September 27, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, thank
you very much.
(Applause.)
MS. ARNOLD: I would like to get a photograph.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before you do that, before you do that,
let me present the proclamation to the three people who were
designated to receive them, Jim Elson, Gary Shanabarger, Peter
Kraley, and Jack Hild. I guess we have four of them, okay.
Gentlemen, if you will each take one of these. Gary?
MR. ELSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jim? Where's Jack?
Okay. And here's another one. If you'll hold those up so they'll
be in the photograph that would be great.
MS. ARNOLD: If I could get you to move as close together as
possible. It's going to be a difficult task.
MR. SAVAGE: Some of the younger ones could kneel on the
floor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That doesn't include you.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
MR. SAVAGE: On the count of three, let's get up. One, two,
three.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jim, is somebody going to speak?
MR. ELSON: Yes, I'll say a few words.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. ELSON: Before everyone disappears here, it is important
that we recognize also Sandra Arnold from the communications and
customer relations department, our photographer today.
Page 19
September 27,2005
(Applause.)
MR. ELSON: Sandra was the driving force behind this program
and still is. I mean, without her determined efforts, this program
would not have come together and our good folks in Collier County
that served our country so well would not be remembered for future
generations.
And I really, speaking for the Veterans Council, have to say that
this is such an important thing. If this had been done in previous
generations, think what our children would know today. So our
generations to come will realize what you folks have done to serve our
country .
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And ladies and gentlemen of the
audience, I would like for you to pay particular attention to this
particular presentation today. Many years ago these veterans were
fighting overseas defending our freedoms. Our children and our
grandchildren will conduct a ceremony like this for those young
people who are fighting overseas now to protect our freedoms. We
must remember them all.
Thank you. And you have some more remarks.
MR. HILD: I'm Jack Hild, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jack, good.
MR. HILD: I'd like to thank our honorable commissioners for
the opportunity to speak on behalf of the veterans here and the
approximate 30,000 that are in Collier County. We thank you for
supporting Capture Living History that is the project to honor the
veterans.
It is my understanding that this wondrous task found its
beginnings in the communications, customer relations department
under the direction of Sandra Arnold, public information director, she
is, and her committee, of which some of the men who received the
Page 20
September 27, 2005
awards today are members of that committee. We veterans thank
th.em for recognizing the citizen soldiers of World War II.
This is a challenging proj ect. Just to find World War II veterans
willing to share their war experience is not an easy task.
I am deeply saddened when I read the obits -- and I think all of us
read obits -- in our paper every day. The death notices of one or more
World War II members, and today there were five of -- distinct
members whose stories we won't get.
It is very humbling as an interviewer to listen to these
experiences that even the family of veterans may not have heard. Not
many veterans shared much of anything with their beloved ones. War
is not pleasant.
It's Collier County's plan to save these and hopefully those
experiences of our Korean, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and other conflicts
that we're involved in.
As a member of the Flying Tigers 14th Air Force for 53 years, I
have watched our membership of 3,000 members in our association
deplete annually.
Since 1958, when our commander, General Clair Lee Chenault
died and was buried in Arlington, we have met each May for 48 years
to honor Chenault and all Flying Tigers who passed from one May to
the next May. In years past, it was only one or two. Last year, 118.
The American volunteer group Flying Tigers numbered 200 who
served in China from May 1941 to December 1941. Now, only -- they
number 15 members. Their stories have been told. We, their Flying
Tiger brothers that inherited their place in China and served under the
command of General Chenault tell our story at the Arhab Museum at
Warner Robins Air Force Base.
This living history project can be all of the above and more. This
project has to be unique among counties in our state. Keep that flag
flying.
These veterans here with me, those of you who stand, we salute
Page 21
September 27,2005
you for what you've done.
(Applause.)
MS. ARNOLD: Commissioners, for the record my name is
Sandra Arnold. I just wanted to express my gratitude to the crowd.
Without the family members encouraging their loved ones to come
forward without community support, identifying many of you and
submitting your names and without the volunteers, this proj ect would
not have been possible. It was really a community joint effort. And
the communications department, every single member helped.
I'd like to give a special thanks to John Torre for letting me
conduct this, for Lavah Hetzel, for her beautiful design work, and for
Bill Fassold for editing this.
This editing process will take place over the next couple of
months. We have 11 that have been completed. We're editing every
day. But each one-hour interview takes about four hours to edited.
We have 69 veterans who we've interviewed so far, and the list keeps
growing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Okay.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anyone else who wishes to
speak?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No, no. No singing.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR MR.
WILLIAM SUCKOW'S WORK AS A MASTER GARDENER-
ADOPTED
MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item under
proclamations, which is -- which is 4 B, which is --
Page 22
September 27, 2005
MR. ELSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: This is a proclamation expressing appreciation for
Mr. William Suckow's work as a Master Gardener. To be accepted by
William Suckow, Master Gardener.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this will be presented by
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is Mr. Suckow in the audience?
Please step up. Gives me great pleasure to make this presentation here
this morning.
The proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas, an important part of Collier County and the University
of Florida Extension is to inform residential gardeners about
Southwest Florida's eco- friendly urban gardening; and,
Whereas, trained master gardener volunteers perform an
extremely important role in this service; and,
Whereas, one master gardener volunteer has shown himself to go
above and beyond expectations in teaching residents what plants are
appropriate for Collier County's climate, their water limitations, and
how to care for them in a Florida friendly way; and,
Whereas, this volunteer has become a stand-alone master
gardener and has given his time to receive training, writing news
articles, initiating the Southwest Florida Horticultural Learning
Center, walk-through guide to the established gardens and donated his
time and efforts since 1997, as well as to serve as Friends of Extension
president; and,
Whereas, his donation of over 1,500 documented hours of time in
the master gardener plant clinic has been of tremendous benefit to the
citizens of Collier County.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that we express the deepest
appreciation to Mr. William Suckow for his gift to our citizens.
Page 23
September 27, 2005
Done and ordered this 27th day of September, 2005. Signed by
the Board of County Commissioners, Fred W. Coyle, Chairman.
And I move for approval of this great proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Congratulations.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd also like to add that Bill is going
to -- Bill, congratulations. And on this clock it says, from your friends
at the University Extension in appreciation for the many years of
dedicated service, September 27, 2005.
God bless you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't that nice?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And here's your proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks a lot. Here you go. You get this
to hold up while you get a picture made.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I read your articles. Thanks for
providing them to the public.
MR. MUDD: We're going to get a picture in front, Bill.
Congratulations.
(Applause. )
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 15,2005, AS
SHERI BENNETT DAY - TO BE ACCEPTED BY SHERI
Page 24
September 27, 2005
BENNETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IMMOKALEE
MULTICULTURAL MULTIPURPOSE COMMUNITY ACTION
AGENCY~ INC. - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is 4-C. It's a
proclamation designating September 15, 2005, as Sheri Bennett Day,
to be accepted by Sheri Bennett, Executive Director of the Immokalee
Multi-Cultural, Multi-Purpose Community Action Agency.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this will be presented by
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is Ms. Bennett here?
MS. BENNETT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Whereas, Ms. Bennett -- or Sheri Bennett has made multiple
contributions to the Immokalee community; and,
Whereas, Ms. Bennett, as an entrepreneur and businesswoman
operating a successful flower shop in Immokalee for six years; and,
Whereas, Ms. Bennett has founded the board -- is a founding
board member for the past two years of an Executive Director of
Immokalee Multi-Cultural, Multi-Purpose Community Action
Agency, Incorporated; and,
Whereas, the powerful advocacy of her customers (sic), Sheri
Bennett has successfully brought Southwest Florida College Medical
Office skills training program to the community; and,
Whereas, Sheri Bennett is quiet, persistence (sic) and fierce
commitment, and will be missed in the community of Immokalee.
Now, there be it -- be it proclaimed by the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, September 27,2005, will
be designated as Sheri Bennett Day.
Done in this order, the 27th day of September. Signed by the
chairman of the Board of Commissioners.
Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation.
Page 25
September 27, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approve for
acceptance by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner
Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much
for your good work.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you leaving?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wish you well.
MS. BENNETT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where you moving? Oh, I sense
that you have a little North Carolina accent. Good luck to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good luck to you.
MR. MUDD: Could we get a picture, please.
MS. BENNETT: You want to see what it says, I assume.
MR. MUDD: Would you like to say a couple--
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2005 AS
CELEBRATE THE ARTS MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY; TO BE
ACCEPTED BY ELAINE HAMILTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
UNITED ARTS COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is 4D, which
is a proclamation designating November 2005 as Celebrate the Arts
Page 26
September 27,2005
Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Elaine Hamilton, the
Executive Director of the United Arts Council of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this proclamation will be presented
by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It gives me great pleasure to read
this proclamation.
Elaine, would you like to come right up here by us? Thank you.
Whereas, the arts and cultural community of Collier County
enriches the lives of residents and visitors; and,
Whereas, tourism in Collier County is significantly enhanced by
the area's diverse offerings of arts and cultural activities; and,
Whereas, the arts playa key role in the business community and
make a significant contribution to the county's economy; and,
Whereas, members of the arts community play an active role in
area schools, enhancing the students' education; and,
Whereas, this is an expansive arts community in Collier County
with 30 plus arts and cultural organizations, 500 plus professional
artists and musicians, 100 plus art galleries, and thousands of art
lovers; and,
Whereas, the United Arts Council of Collier County is organizing
a series of art and cultural events throughout the county during the
month of November 2005.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that November 2005, be
designated as Celebrate the Arts Month in Collier County.
Done and ordered this 27th day of September, 2005, Fred Coyle,
Chairman.
And Commissioner Coyle, I move to approve this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Page 27
September 27, 2005
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much,
Elaine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hey, Elaine, do you have a schedule
of all those events for November?
MS. HAMIL TON: Celebrate the Arts dot org.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When you give us a little speech
over there, would you tell everybody where they can get it? Great.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
MS. HAMILTON: Commissioners, thank you very much. I'd
just like to encourage everyone to participate in Celebrate the Arts
Month in November. There are over 100 different things scheduled,
fun things, music and dance and free concerts. In fact, most of those
things are free to the public, so thank you very much, and enjoy
Celebrate the Arts Month.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where can -- Elaine, where can they
get a listing of those events?
MS. HAMIL TON: Probably the best place would be on-line at
Celebrate the Arts dot org, or they can stop by our office.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Elaine.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
RECOGNIZING ROBERTA REISS, LIBRARY OUTREACH
SPECIALIST, PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION AS "EMPLOYEE
OF THE MONTH" FOR AUGUST 2005 - PRESENTED
Page 28
September 27,2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is paragraph 5, which
is presentations. The first is 5A, which is a recommendation to
recognize Roberta Rice, the library outreach specialist for the public
services division as Employee of the Month for August 2005.
And if Ms. Reiss could come forward, please.
Roberta Reiss is truly dedicated to improving the literacy skills of
adults, families, and older youth in the community. Roberta has
developed a multi-faceted approach to making the library's literacy
program a nationally recognized source for tutoring and reading,
speaking, and life skills.
Roberta has created opportunities for grants in the community
partnerships to improve English language and basic literacy skills to
residents of Collier County.
Roberta is working cooperatively with literacy groups and
government organizations throughout the state. Her contacts and
experience only serve to enrich the quality of our literacy program.
Roberta has made presentations to the Department of Education
Volunteers and the Literacy Task Force. Roberta has also provided
tutor training for Schools on Wheels and literacy training for Habitat
for Humanity mentors.
She has expanded our workplace literacy program to include the
Carlisle residents and the Island Country Club, and has brought the
National Endowment for the Humanities funded People and Stories
grant to our community to improve the reading and communication
skills of residents.
The library has received a NACo, National Association of
Counties, award for its literacy program which is a definite reflection
of Roberta's many accomplishments.
She has made multiple presentations at the Florida Literacy
Conference, and she is the supervising trainer for pro-literacy in this
area.
Page 29
September 27, 2005
Roberta has attended the White House Symposium for
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. She is a member of the state
library task force and has also published an essay, Models of Outreach
Policy and Practice: Something for Everyone at Your Library.
It is an understatement to say that Roberta has made significant
contributions to literacy, this library, and our community.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Employee of the Month for
the month of August, Roberta Reiss.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which library do you work at?
MS. REISS: I'm at the East Naples branch.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, 1'11 have to come visit you.
MR. MUDD: Get your photo.
MR. REISS: Should I hold up my check or the plaque?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Roberta.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING JUDY JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT, PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION, AS EMPLOYEE OF
THE MONTH FOR SEPTEMBER 2005
MR. MUDD: The next presentation is 5B. It's a recommendation
to recognize Judy Johnson, administrative assistant for public utilities
division, as the Employee of the Month for September 2005.
Ms. Johnson, could you come forward, please.
Judy's customer service skills are exemplary. She ensures that
continuous and specific public information campaigns and outreach
programs are conducted to increase public awareness of the mission
and work of the wastewater department. She also provides timely and
accurate responses to requests for information from the county
Page 30
September 27,2005
manager's office, the county attorney's office, as well as the
constitutional offices.
She also responds to inquiries from other divisions as well as to
the office of the Board of County Commissioners. Judy always
promotes an atmosphere of friendliness. She interacts with the public
in a courteous and amiable manner.
The wastewater department worked special shifts during last
season's hurricane events. Judy corresponded with human resources to
verify the correct time entry procedure for the special shift
configuration. She coordinated the flow of information regarding the
time entry changes to each wastewater cost centers' administrative
secretary .
In total, she worked 32 hours of overtime to ensure that payroll
was correctly processed during the hurricane events.
Judy was chosen to participate in the Learn to Lead program in
the year 2000. Judy assisted in a program which identified two areas
in Collier County where littering was costing undue tax dollars. Judy
and her group of participants made a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners to consider the adoption of a proclamation
naming January 2001 as picking up your tax dollars month.
Judy is extremely active in both the Boy Scouts and the Girl
Scouts. She is a member of the selection committee for the Explore
Leadership Award and has earned her Wood Badge Beads. Not
content to do just unit work, she volunteered to help out in the district.
Judy soon became a member of the commissioner's staff, Explorer
Leader Training Team, young (sic) protection trainer for exploring,
and district Explorer chairperson. She participated in the Northeast
Region's Explorer Conference and was also on the National Jamboree
staff.
She is currently Assistant District Commissioner for Venturing
and has earned the commissioner's Arrowhead Award and the District
Award of Merit. This is just a minimal presentation of Judy's active
Page 31
September 27, 2005
community service.
I'd like to present Ms. Judy Johnson, the Employ of the Month
for September 2005.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good work, Judy.
MR. OCHS: Judy, congratulations.
MR. MUDD: Congratulations. Great. Get a picture, Judy.
Good job, Judy.
(Applause. )
Item #5C
PRESENTATION OF THE 2005 FLAGLER AWARDS "THE
HENRY" IN RECOGNITION OF OUTSTANDING TOURISM
MARKETING - TELEVISION - NAPLES, MARCO ISLAND,
EVERGLADES CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU -
PRESENTED BY JACK WERT, TOURISM DIRECTOR -
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is item 5C. It's a presentation of the
2005 Flagler Awards, the Henry, in recognition of outstanding tourism
marketing, television, Naples, Marco Island, Everglades Convention
and Visitors Bureau, and it's to be presented by Mr. Jack Wert, the
tourism director.
MR. WERT: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Chairman Coyle,
Commissioners, good morning. It's my pleasure to show you some of
the awards that we won at a recent presentation by Visit Florida.
We actually got five awards, and they are called the Flagler
Awards, named after Henry Flagler, who really was a pioneer in the
tourism industry here in Florida, built a number of hotels in the area
and was one of the first to bring tourists to the State of Florida.
The first award is for our Paradise Coast branding. We received
Page 32
September 27, 2005
a finalist award for that, for that whole campaign; another for our
website, Paradise Coast dot com. I'll show you those in a moment;
another for sales CD that we produced that the judges thought was
pretty clever; and also after last year's four hurricanes, we had a
special part of our website created that would help people traveling to
the area to find accommodations if they were displaced from their
area.
But the big one and the one that we are most proud of is, what
they call the Henry, and this is the award. And I'll pass it around to all
of you in a moment. But this was for our thirty-second television
commercial that we've played for you on a couple of occasions. And
this was judged against entries from all over the State of Florida, and
some pretty stiff competition. This the first Henry that we've won. I
can promise you it will not be the last.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've seen them all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hope we get to see the alligator
yawning again or singing. That was so cute.
MR. WERT: That won an award, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I've seen them all. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Woe, this is a heavy dude.
MR. WERT: Right. I'll catch those at the end.
I think the most important part of these awards -- it's always nice
to get awards and to be chosen as a winner in a category such as
television, which is so competitive, but it's really great that these ads
and the CDs and all of the campaign is really working and has really
brought us a lot of good business this summer. It is getting the word
out and showing people what a great place this is to visit.
So again, the awards are great, but they're working, too. That's
the wonderful part. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you, Jack.
(Applause.)
Page 33
September 27, 2005
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY BRADLEY CORNELL TO
DISCUSS THE MlRASOL DRAINAGE PROJECT IN THE
COCOHA TCHEE/CORKSCREW WEST FLOWW A Y - THIS ITEM
TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT A FUTURE BCC MEETING
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is public petitions.
It's 6A. It's a public petition request by Bradley Cornell to discuss the
Mirasol drainage proj ect in the Cocohatchee/Corkscrew West
Flowway. Mr. Cornell?
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society
and Audubon of Florida. And Audubon of Florida, as you know, is
the owner and manager of the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in an area
that is -- we're about to discuss for a couple of minutes, and this is
actually the reason we're here.
We're petitioning you to reconsider your provisional approval of
this commercial excavation application that was submitted some years
ago and approved provisionally on May 11,2004.
The excavation application is for a 200- foot wide, four-foot deep,
and three-mile long drainage channel associated with the Mirasol
36-hole, 800-unit golf course community in North Naples.
We urge you to withdraw your May 2004 provisional approval
for the following reasons: When you gave your approval over a year
ago with the understanding that this project was going to receive its
Army Corps permit any day -- that was the understanding -- that has
not been the case. Here we are over a year later, and we do not have
any Corps permit.
And, in fact, in looking at the minutes, Stan Krasnowski, who's
an engineer in your engineering department, was reading -- making a
presentation to you, and he said, quote, all I am looking for is
Page 34
September 27,2005
permission from the Board of Commissioners because it's been in our
system so long, the developer came in and said, the board is going on
vacation soon. We would like to go through the board to get approval
for staff to issue this in case the board is on vacation. This is, of
course, summer 2004, two summers ago.
Skip Bergman with the Corps tells me that they are, he thinks, 30
to 45 days away from issuing the permit, and it's probably as much as
90 days, but that throws us into the wet season. So 90-days plus 360 or
so.
So we've got a problem with that, and we believe that's because
there are some really strong unanswered questions that have come to
light more increasingly as time has gone on since then.
You also gave provisional approval with the understanding that
the flowway would be an ecological and flood protection benefit for
the region. Since then, new data and analysis, which I'm about to give
you a couple of details on, have raised serious questions about the
likely impacts to wetlands both on-site and off-site, including at
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
It's also now apparent that there are woefully insufficient data to
support the flood protection functions or needs of the drainage
channel. Mirasol has insufficient only anecdotal data to support
existence of higher than normal water on site, and thus there's no hard
evidence for any need to lower water levels with the ditch, except for
building a golf course community in the middle of the Cocohatchee
Slough.
The Mirasol golf course community is located on aI, 700 acre
site, 1,500 acres of which are jurisdictional wetlands.
Audubon has name numerous observations of lower than normal
water levels there, although -- and they did this through walking and
aerial visits to the site. This is our scientist, who I will introduce to
you in just a minute or two.
The South Lee County Watershed plan in 1999 made numerous
Page 35
September 27, 2005
recommendations to address East Bonita Springs flooding, as occurred
in 1995. And, in fact, you may recall that that was one of the big
reasons for approving this Mirasol flowway, was that we wanted to
help alleviate regional flooding.
Well, most -- that was based on their assertion that there were
higher than normal water levels on the site.
Most of the recommendations that the watershed plan made to
address these flooding problems have been accomplished, and
Audubon asserts that they have been largely successful with no further
flooding. There is no need for the flood protection function of
excavating this drainage channel at the expense of hundreds and
hundreds of acres of wetlands and habitat destroyed.
Also, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their March 2005
review, in the back of the handout that I just gave you -- that Jason
just gave you, you will see a back-up item. Let's see. It's number two,
the Corps memorandum, and it has conclusions.
And they conclude that there are not sufficient data to say
whether the proposed excavated drainage channel will provide any of
its purported benefits, nor whether the channel will harm Corkscrew
Swamp Sanctuary. This is a big question, and it's a big problem for
us. We actually engaged the services of a very fine hydrologist, Dr.
Thomas Van Lent, who, on behalf of us and others, reviewed the same
modeling, and he found that there were not sufficient data for Mirasol
to even say if their model was accurate. Can't even tell if it's accurate,
which is what the Corps said as well.
In addition, assuming that the model was accurate, which it is not
-- you cannot make that assumption -- but let's say it is, it shows that
most of the on-site wetlands will be damaged by the ditch and many of
the off-site wetlands, including Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, may be
harmed.
Also the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological
opinion this spring in March that concluded that there will be both
Page 36
September 27, 2005
on-site and off-site wetland impacts to such an extent they issued a
take permit to kill up to 47 wood stork chicks annually.
In our book, this is not a benefit for wood storks if there's a take
permit issued. And it's not just in theory. They would be starving up
to 47 chicks in their nests every year because of the lower water
levels. And Jason Lauritzen (phonetic), in just a minute, will explain
how that actually works.
We believe that Collier County has an obligation and an ability to
protect listed species such as wood storks regardless of the permits
issued or not by federal and state agencies. Collier Comprehensive
Plan policy in the conservation coastal management element, 7.1.2,
outlines this obligation, and the subparagraph 3, which we've had
many discussions about in the past, does not take this away when
permits, take permits, or other locally harmful permits are issued by
outside agencies.
I would like for just a minute or two to introduce to you Jason
Lauritzen, who is the Science Director at Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary. And Jason would like to give you just some information
about the science that backs up some of our concerns.
MR. LAURITZEN: I just want to speak briefly about some of
the assumptions that went into establishing the idea that the site at
Mirasol is wetter now than it once was.
There's a graphic that I passed out to you and it's on the screen,
which comes from a slide given by the applicant in several
PowerPoint presentations given to, I believe this body, as well as the
CREW trust.
On the left-hand side there is an illustration of a 1985 survey
done by the water management district indicating that there are
roughly 500 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Fourteen years later, they
show another slide on the right-hand side that shows an increase of
over 800 acres of jurisdictional wetlands based upon the same
Southwest Florida Water Management District's wetland delineation
Page 37
September 27, 2005
protocol.
However, what you don't know in that graphic is that between
1994 and 1996, the state mandated that all of the different protocols
the different agencies used to delineate wetlands was compiled into
one protocol.
So the South Florida Water Management District's protocol
changed between '85 and '99, which is the rationale for why you see
the increase in wetlands on that graphic. But you aren't told that that
occurred. You look at the graphic. You think the 800 acres of
wetlands was a result of the area's flooding.
The second graphic that I would like to show you is a result of
several ground visits that I made to the site. On four occasions
walking on the property, there were wetlands that were being used by
wading birds foraging in and around the Mirasol property. The most
critical wetland value is the one that's just off the site with a green dot
indicating the 951 extension well. We have data that goes back to
1996 that indicates that on most years, this particular wetland is
available for wood stork foraging between November and December.
The gray area surrounding that is a very conservative estimate of
the prey-based recruitment area. Wood storks require a dry down
which concentrates their prey into specific wetland areas.
When that dry down occurs, then the wood storks come in and
forage in that site. It's not just that yellow highlighted area around the
951 extension well that is important for wood storks. It's the entire
recruitment base which provides the forage fish.
This development would drop the water levels another six inches,
taking that wetland out of productivity during the wood storks' nesting
season.
Historically throughout Southwest Florida, as we have developed
and grown, our wetlands have disappeared first from the highest and
driest areas. Wood storks now are nesting more in January and
February, significantly decreasing their productivity. These wetlands,
Page 38
September 27, 2005
which are available in November and December, are critical wetlands
for the wood storks' recovery.
If we continue the policy of permitting projects that are going to
diminish the productivity of those November and December wetlands,
we're going to harm the wood storks. These are the ones that we need
to protect.
The applicants have suggested that their flowway ditch is going
to be mitigation for these wetland impacts. In fact, if you take a look
at that 951 well data, you will find out that that wetlands ditch that
they create is not going to be available until April and May in most
years. This will be later in the season and not benefit the wood storks.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
(Commissioner Coletta entered the hearing room.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want everybody to be
aware that I wrote a letter of support for the permit to the agency
because this board was told that the flowway -- restoring flowway will
help alleviate the flooding to the north, and that was in 1995, I believe
it was.
And I know that we -- since then many other communities have
popped up. This sounds to me like it's just deja vu all over again to
where we're told that we're supposed to protect listed species but yet
our plan also says we need to defer to the agencies.
And in this case, a -- you know, dealing with wetlands, my
understanding, South Florida Water Management weighs in on that
issue, and all that information is sent up to the federal agencies, and
u.S. Corps of Engineers is going to take all information and decide.
And I'm concerned, without having the expertise, that we're
going to pull another permit, therefore, creating another lawsuit. You
know, that's my fear when we don't have that expertise.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
Page 39
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like to have this brought
back to maybe a future date on the commission to discuss this, and I
think we can get a better understanding of what's really going on.
There may be some additional new data that's going to be provided to
all of us so that we're making sure that we're on the correct track here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what I wanted to do.
Just bring it back. Too important to discuss now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Clarification?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then is there -- I'm sorry?
MR. SCHMITT: Clarification? Just so we understand what
we're bringing back. This was a request not to debate the zoning or
the flowway. And I know you've heard a lot of testimony on that. But
the zoning's been approved. And for the record, Joe Schmitt,
Administrator of Community Development/Environmental Services
Division.
The zoning's been approved. Hopefully -- unless you want us to
bring back the entire issue, all we're here is to do what Brad had
requested, was to withdraw this approval that you had given last year
as a -- basically nothing more than a commercial excavation permit.
We had committed a year ago that within 72 hours of the
Mirasol, Terafina, and Parklands zoned projects receiving their Corps
permits, that we would review that permit and then issue a commercial
excavation permit. Now, that's what Brad is basically objecting to.
And I just want to make sure -- clarify that's what we're bringing
back. Not the zoning, not --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MR. SCHMITT: -- not the entire issue regarding flowways.
That's an issue that is at the federal level right now, and it's certainly
not -- unless you want to hear that, should not be an issue to address
when we bring it back. It's just merely a commercial permit.
Page 40
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess where I am on this issue is
that when we bring it back, is just a discussion in regards to how we're
going to control the water levels back farther so that we don't affect
the water levels in the CREW lands and also in Corkscrew Sanctuary
so that we have a nexus in place in regards to finding a way to control
the amount of water that's going to be released from this particular
area. That's my concern.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I truly feel we're tampering
now with one of the most important environmentally sensitive areas in
Collier County. Not only that, but we haven't even addressed the fact
that if we then change the way the flowway functions, we will also
damage all of the uplands that now the listed species are in. It's going
to just change that whole area.
I've felt uncomfortable about this item since we first heard it way
back, I don't know, four years ago. And I just want to bring that back
and at least address the portion that Brad has brought up to us.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, again, clarification. Brad only raised the
issue of the commercial permit. You -- now you're asking me to bring
the entire issue back to talk about the flowway?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I just said, but I want to discuss
the thing Brad brought back to us today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, do we have the
expertise?
MR. SCHMITT: No. I would have to bring the petitioner back,
along with all the information in regards to the permit that they
submitted to the Corps. If you want to hear issues in regard to water
quality or any of the zoning issues, you've heard those.
The zoning's already been approved. You have three approved
PUDs. What Brad was debating today was this permit that was
Page 41
September 27, 2005
basically this commercial excavation permit that you approved a year
-- well, actually in May of 2005 -- or 2004, excuse me. That's what
Brad was debating, not the flowway itself.
Again, that is at the Corps -- u. S. Army Corps of Engineers level
and Southwest Florida Water Management Permitting. If you want to
bring that back, I would have to have the experts come from the -- the
applicant to discuss those issues.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if that's what the board wants to
do, then that's what you have to do.
MR. SCHMITT : Yes, I'll do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't know what the board wants to
do quite yet.
MR. SCHMITT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I'll be honest with you. I'm
the one that encouraged Brad to bring it before the commission today.
It doesn't mean I necessarily agree with where he's going, but I do
think that we -- whenever there's an item of concern by the
community, especially by part of the environmental community that
Brad represents, that it bears us looking at it again.
At the time we deferred the expertise of water management to the
Army Corps, and I really don't know what's changed in that direction
at this point in time, but I'm more than willing to hear the argument.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I feel the same way as my fellow
commissioners have stated, and I have concerns that we're not just
going to be digging a big ditch here. Maybe we can look at some
other alternatives, and hopefully -- whether they get the permit or not,
all I'm concerned about is that we take care of -- that man is able to
come up with compromises so that we can live along with nature also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
Page 42
September 27,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to make a motion, I hope.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Joe, the reason you heard that -- my
concerns were because I've had these same concerns since first we
heard it, and I didn't -- I didn't want to vote for it then. But when I
didn't hear any objections from the environmental community and one
section of that community encouraged us to vote for it, I thought, well,
maybe I didn't understand it correctly. But I understand also that if we
bring that whole issue back, then we're going to be violating their
rights as well.
So I make a motion to bring back the section on the construction
area for the flowway.
MR. SCHMITT: Commercial excavation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commercial excavation, I'm sorry.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- bring this back for the purpose of
considering the commercial excavation permit by Commissioner Fiala
and second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's unanimous to bring it back for
discussion.
Page 43
September 27, 2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and that would be at the 25 October
meeting. We're going to need about a month for that. If that's okay
with the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Now we have a time certain--
MR. MUDD: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- item at 10 o'clock.
Item #9F
DISCUSSION OF THE RFP AND SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT
FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION FACILITY AT THE
GOLDEN GATE LIBRARY - TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO A
FUTURE BCC MEETING WITH STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS, WITHOUT ANY COMPROMISE TO
FUNDING TO ALL OTHER LIBRARIES - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: And that's item 9F. This item to be heard at 10
a.m. It's a discussion of the RFP and subsequent contract for the
proposed expansion facility at the Golden Gate Library. And this item
was asked for by Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, I'm not going to
take much time on this. I view this issue as what the Board of
Commissioners were told versus what the residents were told.
I did provide some information to the residents so they can
provide it to the board. I'm hoping at the end that we can keep on track
not only the Golden Gate Library, at the expanded, what the
community understands, but also keep the South Regional Library --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, just a moment,
please.
Gentlemen, there's a conversation going on in the back that's a
little disruptive up here. Could you please take it out in the hallway?
Page 44
September 27, 2005
Okay. I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again, just let the -- I think it's
best to let the citizens share their feelings and understandings of what
their community is supposed to receive as far as education through a
library system in the community of Golden Gate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
We have some public speakers on this.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have four. The first speaker is
William Poteet. He'll be followed by Russell Tuff.
MR. POTEET: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
William H. Poteet, Jr. I'm president of the Golden Gate Area Civic
Association, and I'm here to talk to you about our library.
Last week our organization met with members of the county
staff, Marla Ramsey, Marilyn Matthes, and Ron Hovell. My
comments regarding this meeting and other events are not designed to
impugn any of their characters or any kind of employees, but to shed
light on the issue that we're going to discuss today.
Ms. Ramsey and her staff have been nothing but professional.
Last week's meeting answered a number of our questions that we
had, but it also created a number of other questions. The bottom line
is, we have found inconsistencies over the past several years, and we
are here to ask the commission to clarify the issue.
Several years ago, former library director, John Jones, told the
citizens of Golden Gate at a county meeting that the Golden Gate
community should have a library of22,000 to 24,000 square feet. The
citizens welcomed this news.
Since then we've heard a number of different scenarios regarding
the size and concept. We were informed in one document that a
15,000 square foot building could be completed next to the adjacent
7,000 square foot structure, and that would give us a total of about
22,000 square feet.
During this meeting we had last week with Ms. Ramsey, we were
Page 45
September 27, 2005
told that only a 12,000 square foot structure could be constructed.
We received an executive summary to the commission which --
in some of the package that she gave us which states that the
recommendation is that 12,000 square foot building be constructed
adjacent to the existing 7,000 square foot due to budget constraints,
and that kind of raised our -- the hair on the back of our necks when
we heard budget constraints.
One could extrapolate from this that a larger structure could have
been constructed if there were no budget restraints -- constraints.
We also discussed with Ms. Ramsey the possibility of vacating
two lanes of Lucerne Road. She informed us this would help the --
affect the size of the structure, and this is where I beg to differ.
Lucerne is approximately 585 feet long. And if you took 25 feet
off of it for the vacation of the roads, that would give you over 14,000
square feet of land that could be used in the property. And in the real
estate development community, which I work, we typically use
four-to-one or five-to-one ratio in determining how many square feet
of a building can be constructed on a pad.
And using these calculations real simply, at 25 percent on
14,000, you're well over 3,000 square feet; between 3,000, 3,600
square feet.
And so under this scenario, we see no reason why this site can't
be designed to put a 15,000 square foot building on it.
Now, much of the confusion we face today is because our
community had not been involved with the process. The civic
association has long advocated for what is best for our community,
and we thank the commission for last week correcting the
communication problem by allowing one of our members to be
included on the new architectural design committee for the Golden
Gate Library.
Our organization has worked in conjunction with the county
numerous times in the past, provided support for the Golden Gate
Page 46
September 27, 2005
fly-over and other projects, and we need your support today in order
to get what is needed and what was promised for the Golden Gate
community.
You've promised East Naples a 30,000 square foot structure, and
you had previously promised us a 22- to 24,000 square foot structure.
We believe both communities deserve what they were promised, and
we ask you to deliver it.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Russell Tuff. He'll be
followed by Lindy Adelstein.
MR. TUFF: Good morning, Commissioners, and thanks for the
opportunity to make government work for us. And I don't want to
review a whole bunch of stuff he did. You know, it all started in 2001,
we had the studies, we saw the great plans, and it was determined the
size should be 22,4-.
And the thing with that, too, is the schools had also done their
studies, and they found that with our households and all these things,
that they wouldn't need to have these two schools. Well, they found
out they were two short, because they had to build two more schools.
So what shows up on paper as our need may be undersold, too. I
believe we may need a whole lot more than that.
And somewhere along the way there were two paths heading off.
One was to the people, one was to the commissioners. And we
weren't aware of how things happened, how politics happen, how
budgets get placed, but all of a sudden, Immokalee's built and they
wrote a check. And now East Naples, which is, no question,
deserving on this and needing of it, is bumped ahead, too, and then
Golden Gate area, where probably the need is the greatest, all the
documents show that it's the busiest library, exclusive of the central
library, and the need is there.
And, you know, Andrew Carnegie built libraries for one reason,
Page 47
September 27, 2005
it's for people that can't afford the resources to do their own things.
Well, we've got all these children in our area where our need is great.
And it seems a shame to build a facility that would not be
adequate to meet the needs, and it's because of -- probably politics
played a role in this. But I think a very simple solution is one Bill had
mentioned, that Lucerne, it's a road that doesn't go anywhere or do
anything. It goes right to the complex. We can take that land and we
can build a facility that's needed.
Two, the budget will run out bonding the East Naples Library
somewhere down the road. And so if we just put the proper structure
for the Golden Gate Library and we bond both of those at the same
time, I think you can walk away saying, you know, we did the right
thing. This is what the community needs, and everybody walks away
happy.
And so that's what I'm asking today is, let's make this thing
happen and build what the community should have, and everybody
comes out a winner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lindy Adelstein. He'll be
followed by Cheryle Newman.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Good morning, Lindy Adelstein. I have
worked with the county commissioners for the past four years, and
I've found them extremely qualified.
I would -- it would be difficult for me to believe that
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Fiala would not want to
work together to find a common ground to acquire their library needs
in each of these districts. They certainly have the ability to get it done
properly. What goes -- but that goes without saying. I know they can,
and I hope they will, do it together, because that makes goods sense.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Chery Ie Newman.
Page 48
September 27, 2005
MS. NEWMAN: For the record, Cheryle Newman. Excuse my
voice. I've got a bad cold. Golden Gate Area Civic Association. The
previous speakers ahead of me have covered most of the information
that I had for you today. I just would like to run a few things in front
of you history-wise.
Volunteers started the Golden Gate Branch Library back in 1968
in a rented storefront. In 1969 there was a total of 499 total circulation
at that time. Since then, you know how the Golden Gate area has
continued to grow.
And the first permanent library was put there in 1978 at a cost of
approximately $200,000 for 4,000 square foot. That was expanded in
1993 with an additional 3,000 square foot, for a total that we have
today of 7,000 square foot.
A 1990 population study showed that Golden Gate had 18,000 --
approximately 18,500 people, and by 2005, which is where we are
now, we were expected to have 35,600 people in the community,
which would have doubled in over -- in about 15 years.
There's a lot of history in the Golden Gate area. There's a lot of
need. I believe some of the paperwork that I have gone through, I've
done some research, one of the major issues that they have at the
library itself that were divulged at the town hall meeting was space.
They don't have the space. They don't have the space for books, they
don't have the space for quiet study area, they don't have the space for
additional computers, they don't have the space for children's
programs, adult programs.
They have a septic system issue there that has been reoccurring.
There have been days where they've had to shut down the library until
it can get taken care of.
The biggest issue that I have before you this morning is, there
was a contract given to a design firm in '03 at an approved cost by you
of just under $300,000. That -- a change order has come through in
'04 for an additional 120 some thousand dollars.
Page 49
September 27,2005
There's been almost a half a million dollars spent in design thus
far, and we are told we don't have a design for a building yet. And the
square footage that they're talking about has been vacillating from
17,000 square foot additional to 15,000 square foot additional.
Now, we're being told, yes, you can put 15,000 on there, but due
to budget constraints, like they said, we're only going to recommend
12,000 square foot.
I believe that in all the grant applications nothing has been
changed. The grant applications have referred to 15,000 square foot.
I think that the county staff should abide by what they've applied for
for the grant, and I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Halas?
That was our last speaker, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's my understanding that I thought
what we're contemplating building out there was 17,000 square foot at
the present time. Maybe I can be corrected on that. But when
someone from the county goes out to a community and says, hey,
we're going to build -- they could come out and say we're going to
build a 50,000 square foot library.
If they don't -- if the Board of County Commissioners do not give
that direction on the size of the library, then I feel sorry for the people
that live there in Golden Gate that were under the impression that a
library director that's no longer with us made a statement of that
nature.
And I think that we have tried to address this problem, making
sure that we take care of the people in Golden Gate. And from what I
can see here of the information that was given to me, I believe that
we're going to start sometime in '06, '07 in regards to the library.
And it's my understanding that it's going to be around 17,000
square feet. If I'm wrong, I need to be corrected on that.
Page 50
September 27,2005
MS. RAMSEY: I can help you with two board directions that
have happened. One was in September of 2003 where the board gave
staff direction to contract wit BSSW to put in a 10,000 square foot
addition to the existing facility and do a renovation of the existing
facility.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: After that direction was given and the
consultant went out -- and there was a little concern about whether we
could renovate that building as part of that addition over whether we
needed to -- it would be more cost effective if we razed that facility
and put in a new facility. That would have been a total of 17,000
square foot on that location.
There has been a lot of water underneath the bridge since that
point in time as we've tried to determine what is the best thing to do in
the Golden Gate area.
On July 26th, staff came back to you with another proposal. That
proposal was to take the new addition, make it 12,000 square foot, and
separate it from the existing facility and put them side by side on the
site, to give you a total of 19,000 square foot, and that's where we are
as of today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nineteen thousand?
MS. RAMSEY: Nineteen thousand square foot.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Too many --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I step down to the podium
and put something on the viewfinder?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, sure. I need to ask a question in
the interim. You're saying 19,000 square feet in addition to the
existing 7,000?
MS. RAMSEY: No, sir. It's a 12,000 square foot addition --
Page 51
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: -- and a 7,000 existing. So it would be 19,000
total.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, this is a grant
application to the State of Florida, a $500,000 grant application that
we, the Board of Commissioners, directed staff to seek. And I want to
point out the date of April 19, 2005, was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: July 19th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: July 19th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, on the top it says July
19th, yes, you're correct. And I want to point out that it is being
budgeted for the 2005/2006 fiscal year of the state grant, okay. I think
we're working under that budget now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ifwe could zoom in. It says,
narrative description of the construction project. The construction of
this grant application outline plans transforming a 7,000 square foot
facility at the Golden Gate Library to a 24,000 square foot facility.
Now, Commissioners, I think we could remember in the recent
past where the Board of Commissioners had to reach in their pocket
under the scenario where we told the state we were going to build a
10,000 square foot, when actually it should have been a 20,000 square
feet (sic) building, and that was the Immokalee Library -- or the
Immokalee Airport.
The Board of Commissioners had to correct that. I don't want to
correct that -- this problem in the future. I want to correct that today.
Now, Ms. Newman did not put up there a grant application -- and
if I can have that -- showing the existing square foot of 7,000, the
expanded of 17,000.
Now, it's not just what we told the citizens, but it's what we told
Page 52
September 27, 2005
other agencies. Is that it?
So I'm going to step back up to the dais, and if there's no motion
on the floor, I'm going to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would just like to get some
clarification. Where did the 24,000 enter into the equation here? And,
again, I think it's looking at -- if I looked at this correctly as it was
being placed on there, it looked like this was something from John
Jones again. And was this approved by the Board of Commissioners?
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, I do know that the grant
application was brought before the Board of County Commissioners to
get approval to apply. I will say that the date on the top of that one
was -- I can't remember. There was -- when the application actually
went in. April 1, 2004.
I would show you that during this whole process where I told you
there's a lot of water going under the bridge trying to determine what
is the best thing to do in the Golden Gate area, we asked Barney,
Schmidt, and Weaver to do a study for us and determine what they
though the ultimate square footage could be at this location.
And they were to look for a -- desirable would to be provide 22-
to 24,000 square foot as was demonstrated a few minutes ago.
The response on that came back in August 20th of 2004, after the
application of the grant went in saying that the design team
determined that approximately a 20,000 square foot facility would be
the maximum available with the parking and water management done
on that site, and I can put that on the visualizer for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, Marla, could I just expand upon
that question a moment? What happens when you receive a grant
application based upon a 24,000 square foot building and you decide
not to build a 24,000 square foot building?
MS. RAMSEY: I'm going to let Marilyn give some information,
but I do have a letter that she has written in that regard. So I'll turn it
Page 53
September 27, 2005
over to Marilyn here for a second.
MS. MATTHES: I'm Marilyn Matthes, Library Director, and I
wrote the original grant application for 25,000 square foot, and at that
time we did hope that we could get 24,000 square foot on, and that
was my direction from the library director at that time.
The grants are a year and a half planning process for the grant, so
this grant I applied for April 1st of2004. It was considered during the
2005 legislative session that ended this spring, and it was approved in
that session, and the library received, after July 1, 2005, notification,
that we had, indeed, received the grant of $500,000 to build this
building.
Before any construction proj ect is finalized and before the state
will finally sign off on giving you the money, there's several things
that have to be done, which we're doing right now.
You approved today on the -- last week -- or at the last
commission meeting on the consent agenda, accepting the money. As
soon as I got the letter asking -- or notifying us from the state that we
were going to get the money, I wrote a letter to the state for their
consideration of the changes that we had made to the grant content in
the meantime.
I have yet to hear from the state on whether they are still going to
approve the grant with those changes. I've talked to them a couple of
times about it, and they've asked for additional information, but they
are still making that consideration. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Matthes?
MS. MATTHES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My assistant, Sam Tucker, sent
you an e-mail on the renewal of the grant. And the question was
asked, what has changed from the previous grant on the grant that was
set up, and you said -- basically said, it's the same. Is the -- you're
remembering from that e-mail correspondence?
Page 54
September 27,2005
MS. MATTHES: I don't quite remember that question from
Sam. I remember she asked for documents, and I provided
documents.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. MATTHES: But I don't remember any--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: E-mail correspondence of
asking about the grant particularly?
MS. MATTHES: She asked something, and I gave a very long
explanation, and she wanted me to boil it down to a couple of
sentences, but I don't think it had anything -- I think it had to do with
the grant timeline. I don't think it had to do with the content of the
grant. I could be wrong, but I can double-check that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my understanding that
basically is the same. We're working under the grant application of
April. I'm sorry.
MS. MATTHES: 2004.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, the one presently.
MS. MATTHES: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I just want to submit those
into the record, the documents that I provided. It's my understanding
that the water management issue is the master plan for the whole site,
including parks and rec., including the government center and the
substation out there, and that had to have been done under the Golden
Gate Library expansion, so --
MS. RAMSEY: That was done with the assumption -- the
calculations when we did wheels (sic) was the assumption that there'd
be a 10,000 square foot facility added on to the library, but it was not
included in the permit. If you look at the permit that we have
currently, that is not in the permit diagram, but the calculations for
capacity have been done with the 10,000 square foot facility. Either
way we would have to go back for modification of that water
management permit.
Page 55
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- but with the vacation of
Lucerne and the potential of boxing in some of the existing water
management would give you quite a bit of square footage to
accomplish the -- what's required under the site development plan?
MS. RAMSEY: As far as calculations. But I do have Dan
Summers with Barney, Schmidt, and Weaver with us today, if you'd
like to ask any specifics on that specific area. The Lucerne vacation is
new. It's even -- it's even more recent than the July 26th board action.
That particular issue coming up is probably a viable issue. We've
talked about that as a staff. But that was after the direction that we
received on the 26th by the Board of County Commissioners. And we
have -- I think we've asked Dan Summers' agency to look at that
square footage and what it would do to the site.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I certainly feel -- I went over
to your library, and it was very, very crowded, and so I understand
your concerns, I truly do, and disappointment. I know we had been
told we were going to get 40,000 square foot, then it was moved down
to a 30. And 30,000 to serve 87,000 people -- I think it's up to 95,000
people in the vicinity -- you know, you just figure, well, it's never
enough, right? I understand that.
Going on to -- and you have such a vibrant community who
needs that library, just as I do. That's why Commissioner Henning and
I would work hand in hand to support one another throughout this
entire thing.
I want to ask, how much -- how much would it cost to tear down
the building to build a larger building and take that street. And I don't
know that you would have those figures here, but I'm curious to that.
And then if we could do that, how much longer would it take in
order to come up with a new design, taking the street and so forth.
MS. RAMSEY: If I understand your question correctly, you
asked what it would cost if we took down the existing facility?
Page 56
September 27, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. That's -- I think that's what
they were hoping to do is tear down -- no, no ? You want to leave that
one there. Okay -- and build--
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. The existing facility would have to be
paid for out of an ad valorem dollar because it's already existing, it's
not a growth-related item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood.
Excuse me.
MS. RAMSEY: And I don't have a figure currently on the
Lucerne element of it or that water management issue that the
commissioner was talking about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When was this approved on the U
CHAIRMAN COYLE: AUIR.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. And also, what square
footage was approved?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, if you look at the history of the AUIR,
going back a number of years, 10,000 square foot was approved, and I
believe it was approved in '03/'04 budget year, so we are behind in
trying to get the Golden Gate Library up.
I building it was in 2004 that the AUIR reflected a 15,000 square
foot addition. A 2004 AUIR reflects a 10,000 square foot addition.
So it was 10,000, went up to 15-, then has come back down to 10-.
And we sit today, we're planning a 12,000 square foot facility that the
location.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And 12,000 square foot is also
including the 7,000 that's presently there?
MS. RAMSEY: In addition to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Addition to.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
Page 57
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I would like to wait until
Commissioner Henning makes his motion before I ask my question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then let me get to the basis of
this argument. We are -- we're spending a lot of time debating about
who told who what and why. We haven't gotten around to the basis
for calculating the requirements for square footage in libraries based
upon population, and that's what the AUIR is supposed to do, and that
is our legal document.
Now, what does the -- what is the square footage requirement for
either East Naples or Golden Gate? What I'm trying to do is to stop
any competition between districts. We shouldn't be doing this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not doing that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't want to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And there shouldn't be a feeling left with
the community that one community is getting something better than
another community. We should have this all on a standard level of
service, and that should be the governing issue here.
And so please tell me what is the level of service that was utilized
here and what it should be for Golden Gate's projected population.
MS. MATTHES: This is Marilyn Matthes again. That's
sometimes a very confusing question. It sounds straightforward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I hope you don't give me a confusing
answer.
MS. MATTHES: I'll try not to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. MATTHES: The AUIR requires or suggests that a .33
square foot per capita be the standard for library facilities throughout
the county. There is no requirement that they -- to be divided any
particular way. There's nothing that says so many square foot goes
here, so many square foot there, and that kind of thing.
And until we started looking at this whole issue probably this
Page 58
September 27,2005
summer, the library system never looked at it that way. We looked at
it for the entire system and trying to meet our growth management
standard for the entire county since we are a county library system.
If you want to divide Golden Gate area out, the AUIR says the
population at buildout is 42,191, and we're about at buildout right
now. At the standard of .33 square foot per capita, that would require
us to have 14,000 square foot of library space in Golden Gate.
MR. MUDD: Total?
MS. MATTHES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Total?
MS. MATTHES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're at 19,000?
MS. MATTHES: According to .33 square foot and the Golden
Gate planning community, buildout population of 42,191 works out to
actually 13,923 square feet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me just pursue that a little bit.
What does East Naples and City of Naples and North Naples work out
to be? Can you give me those figures?
MS. MATTHES: I've not really -- I've not figured that out. But
if East Naples has about a 90,000 population right now, that would be
about 27,000 square feet for East Naples.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And they have what?
MS. MATTHES: They have an existing 6,600 square foot
building.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is planned for them?
MS . MATTHES: Thirty thousand square foot, South Regional
Library. There's been no decision made on whether the East Naples
branch will continue as a library. The Library Advisory Board did
recommend that we keep the East Naples Branch Library and evaluate
its usage after the South Regional opens, and then make a decision on
whether it should remain open or closed or used for some other
purpose.
Page 59
September 27,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you. That at least
gives me a general idea of what we're talking about.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's not mistake that
there's no competing interest between East Naples and Golden Gate.
We're going to work together, hopefully, on this issue. Even--
whatever the board decides, we're going to be very supportive of East
Naples.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the capital improvement of
.33 is part of the calculations, you know, of impact fees. But other
calculations is based upon servicing area of a radius of five miles.
Now, you know and I know that we'll never achieve that, so the
Golden Gate Library is expecting to carry more area than Golden
Gate. And it's obvious to me that, you know, we're going to provide,
meet -- exceed the expectations of the public in East Naples, and we
need to do that. That's what we're here for is to exceed the expectation.
That's our mission statement, or I think the county manager's.
But the -- you know, the issue is, we're working under a grant
where we told the State of Florida that we're going to build a -- much
larger than what's being planned, and I don't want to lose our
credibility with the grants office in Tallahassee.
And this document is -- I got this Thursday and requested any
other ones at that time. And they wrote me a note of, oh, by the way,
a grant application was applied for a -- 30,000 in East Naples.
So I'm going to make a motion that we direct staff to build a
17,000 square foot expansion of this facility, and that includes (sic)
the existing building, and also keep track -- keep the East Naples
library on track as the citizens were told.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just clarify. You said -- and I
don't know that you really meant this. You said build an addition
17,000, but you said including the 7,000 existing. You meant--
Page 60
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Total of 24,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You meant a total of 24,000, not
including that in the 17,000, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and I think I said it twice.
What I meant is keep the 7,000, build a 17,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta has his light on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let Commissioner Fiala finish,
then I'll pick up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. Go ahead. Your
button's on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, first thing, I don't
see these libraries as belonging to any particular district. A good part
of Golden Gate Estates, it's just not accessible for them to go all the
way out to Golden Gate Library, or they use the -- of Golden Gate
Estates Library, and I know they use the Golden Gate City Library for
convenIence.
And from the far end of 951, the communities in there use East
Naples. So I don't see this as a district issue, and I think we need to
maximize our libraries to the max whenever it's possible and
financially feasible to do it.
And Commissioner Henning is very right to bring back the
concerns of the community. I think we also have to be very clear that
we exercise due diligence on the part of staff. As far as anyone on
staffbeing less than truthful or forthcoming, that's not the case, and
I'm sure everybody will agree.
As far as the size of the library, if there's a way to do it, if there's
a financial way to do it and a physical way to do it to increase the size
of the library to the size that we're talking about, which is what,
24,000 square feet, then, you know, I'd like to see us do it, even if it
was another year delayed.
Page 61
September 27, 2005
I mean, there's only -- but my question comes in now is the
monies. The monies that would be available and the space we have to
build on, could somebody address that?
In other words, if we were to start down this road, what would we
have to take from if we brought it in sooner than later? Of could we
do what was suggested by one speaker, include it as part of the bond,
that we'd be able to go forward with both projects in an expedient
matter?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I put up on the slide the impact fee
spreadsheet, and Mr. -- Mr. Smykowski or Susan will address your
particular issues.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski. This
is -- on the visualizer, Ms. Usher prepared a multi-year analysis out
into the future just looking at current impact fee collections, book
expenditures, and the projected debt service on both the Golden Gate
Library as well as the South Regional Library.
The Golden Gate branch library at this point was based on the
12,000 square foot addition. And the bottom line -- Susan, if you
could point. Beginning in 2010, based on the projected impact fee
levels of approximately $2 million a year, it's actually $1,950,000.
Beginning in 2010, obviously there is a projected impact fee shortfall,
in essence, showing that you could not construct both the facilities.
And this is based on a IS-year amortization of both the Golden Gate
and the South Regional Library.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. There's nothing as far as
grants go or other fees that we could use for libraries out there, like
new- found monies, as I use the expression very loosely in this world
today, that could have been the cost of this?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: There is a $500,000 grant showing in
'07/'08.
MR. MUDD: It's '05/'06 on the total budget. Susan is pointing to
it right now.
Page 62
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I guess the other question would
be, that goes right along with this is, from what we have budgeted to
what would be the ideal, what would be the difference in dollars?
Does anybody know that, or is this something that's unknown? Be
able to reach Commissioner Henning's objective and --
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, based on the impact fees that
you've got something coming based on the shortage that Michael
pointed out in FY -'09 and through 2010, where it comes in at that
number, $393,900, if you could point to that. You'll notice a note up
on the upper part of the slide that says that we need to have new rates
in place based on our impact fees by fiscal year' 1 0 or we have that
shortfall of $400,000.
So as this chart states today, if there is no impact fee update
where we would get an increased amount of money for the impact fees
for libraries, the ad valorem taxes would have to put in money in '09
and '10 to the tune of around $400,000. It would increase in 2010 or
2011 to 625,000, and then you basically see those particular issues.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But that's predicated on that fact
that we wouldn't raise the fees. That's not if we do raise them. If we
do raise them, that's included?
MR. MUDD: Well, no, it's not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Suppose we raised them to the
legal limits, let me ask you that, legal justifiable limits. Would we
have enough income to be able to cover the shortfall to be able to
build the Golden Gate Library?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, under the 12,000 and under the
30,000, 12,000 which is the addition to the 7 in the Golden Gate
Library, and 30,000 for the south regional, we believe with the impact
fees coming in, that we'll have enough dollars to cover those shortfalls
when that increase study comes aboard.
With the increase that you have for square footage to the Golden
Gate -- to Golden Gate Library, this particular picture that is being
Page 63
September 27, 2005
displayed for you on this spreadsheet gets worse. And so something's
got to give in this particular issue, either it's the square footage or it's a
slippage of the north -- or, excuse me, of the South Regional Library
to years farther out than what's projected on the AUIR slide that you
saw earlier, which is, I believe it was '08/'09.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, this is all very
interesting. Some of these questions I asked, you're answering them, I
assume, quite fully, but I think more thought might be able to go into
this. I would, for one, would like to see if Commissioner Henning
might consider, or if his particular motion doesn't carry forward, that
we continue this item till we get some more data to be able to support
the what-if, see what -- if we exhaust all possibilities. I mean, he's
brought -- he's brought forward a very big concern to the Golden Gate
community, and I think we owe it to ourselves to exhaust all
possibilities.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I was just going to say the
same thing. So I would like to see us discuss more with a little bit
more facts so that we can see if we can support this. I really want to
support his efforts, and I know that his community is excited about a
new library, and he's got a lot of children in his community, just as I
do.
And by the way, my East Naples community is so large that a lot
of my people from Radio Road on use his library. So, I mean, it's not
like, you know -- because they can't use ours. Our is -- we don't have
very many books and it's a very small library , and we can't even have
many programs at ours because it's too small to have programs.
So they do use the Golden Gate Library, and it's probably closer
for them, so I'd like to see a little bit more research gone into the
figures and how can we make this happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess the bottom line is that we
Page 64
September 27, 2005
don't have the capital here to address. Everybody would like to have a
Tas Mahal for a library. My question here is, we -- have we used this
nexus on all of our libraries throughout the county that we look at as
far as expansion? Do we use -- have -- use this nexus step -- of .33
square feet?
MS. MATTHES: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And have we found that it's
been adequate in the areas that we've expanded the libraries?
MS. MATTHES: You're asking a librarian if space is always
adequate. Well, you know, I've got to say no, but it's the standard that
we have to use.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have to use. Why do we have
to use this?
MS. MATTHES: Because that's what the growth management
specifies, and that's what we get impact fees on that basis.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Based on this? Okay.
MS. MATTHES: Based on that, .33.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So as far as addressing
impact fees, we're probably pretty much at the limit where the impact
fees are now for the libraries other than the fact that we can increase it
for the consumer price index; is that -- would that be --
MS. MATTHES: We do -- the impact fees are indexed. As to
the limit of what we can charge for library impact fees, I do not have
that information.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mike, can you maybe shed some
light on this? Where are we in regards to the impact fees for libraries?
MS. MATTHES: The impact fee is about $180 for 1,000 square
foot. It's indexed annually with the CPI.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And this is the nexus that
we go by, and this is --
MS. MATTHES: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So as far as you know --
Page 65
September 27, 2005
and I guess we'll have to leave this up to the discretion of staff -- are
we at the -- about where we can squeeze the turnip for impact fees in
addressing this library issue?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, Commissioner. We just had an update on
the impact fees, which was approved by the board this spring. And
every time we go out for an impact fee update, we ask that consultant
to give us what is legally defendable.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So I would say at this point
in time, I understand where Commissioner Henning's coming from,
but I think that we're addressing the needs in his community as fairly
as we can because we're addressing the same needs in the south area,
for the south library, and we've addressed the needs of the people that
use the Orange Blossom Library when that was built, when we used
basically the same type of a nexus; is that correct?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Then I think, as far as I'm
concerned, we need to continue on the road that we've set forth here.
That's my feeling on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to let this
conversation go on too long, but I do have a question. On our library
system, is it pay as we go, or is it bonded?
MS. RAMSEY: It's bonded.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: At least we have bonded the North Regional
Library, and for both the Golden Gate expansion and the South
Regional.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The figures that were shown
previously, is that a bond?
MS. RAMSEY: If you look at the slide that you have there,
you'll see the bond number for the North Naples Regional Library on
the bottom of that.
Page 66
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the future libraries.
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. These are all bonded out for 15 years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Paying back impact fees.
MS. RAMSEY: Impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Using impact fees.
Commissioners, we can make this happen if you want to. The Board
of Commissioners even allocated more money of the taxpayers back
to reserves, and it's an ongoing replenishment.
And, you know, if the commissioners need more information,
that's fine, but I think that we need to give direction, and I hope the
direction is, how can we do it instead of how can't we do it. And that's
where we're -- the information we're getting is, how can't we do it, and
I think we can get some information of how can we make it happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I think that's one of the things
that's bothering me. We've got -- we've got street annexation -- not
annexation, but we can take a vacation of a street and we can do
certain things. We have flood control issues, water management
issues, that apparently we're not prepared to address quite yet.
And we also have the AUIR coming up. That's our legal
document for substantiating the actions we take. And it is unfortunate
that things have been communicated that don't -- are not necessarily
based upon the AUIR itself, and that is particularly confusing to the
public.
But maybe I can -- I can suggest that we -- we move ahead
evaluating those opportunities. I think, Marla, you said to us that you
really haven't had a chance to evaluate the vacation of the street and
what the implications are.
But if we can move ahead with the construction of the new
building as quickly as possible to the size that can be accommodated
within the existing property and the board could communicate to the
staff that we would like to ultimately have more square footage there,
and then that could be accommodated when the time comes to
Page 67
September 27,2005
renovate or tear down the old building.
You could build a bigger than 7,000 square feet there, and the
addition of that building could be funded by impact fees, and that
would get us to the point where we're a little closer to knowing what
the impact fee updates might provide us for that particular structure.
So I don't know it that would be acceptable. But it seems to me that
the AUIR's coming up a in couple months.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The AUIR we present -- we sent out
guidance to the staff to collect the information. That's coming back in
the comprehensive plan. We plan to present to the planning
commission based on our plan in November and then to this board in
December.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, you know, it's my -- as you
know, it's my -- my personal code that when you tell somebody you're
going to do something, you do it. And even if it hurts you, you do it.
And it is understandable that we have some communication
problems here because circumstances have changed and people have
changed, but it's important that we resolve that in the best interest of
our residents, and maybe this is a way of doing it without getting
ourselves into financial trouble.
But my concern right now is, I want to help the people, I want to
resolve the correspondence, or the communication problems, but I
want to do it in accordance with our legal process, which is an AUIR
update and a proper evaluation of the budget so that we understand
where the money's coming from, how much it's going to take, and how
we're going to get there. And I just like -- I would like to go through
that orderly process. And if we could work together over the next
couple of months to try to resolve that, that would be helpful.
Is that okay with you, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to bring this back.
Page 68
September 27,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Give direction, bring it back in
the next agenda item so we can resolve this issue --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- with the understanding of,
how can you make it happen through vacations of road easements,
take a look at the existing stormwater capabilities for utilization of a
17,000 square foot building, take a look at the bonding capability of
the assets that we have. I mean, that's -- that's what I would like to see
done, and come back to the board, and then we can make a decision
on is -- are we keeping up on what is being told to the citizens.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
And Commissioner Fiala had asked to speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just to make sure. Now, I'm
going to get very myopic and say, but I don't want to see the East
Naples Library downgraded because you're going to take the money
and put it into another library.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to put that into motion
that we don't want to compromise South Regional Library.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll include that in my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we have a motion and a second.
And Commissioner Coletta wants to say something more.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Mudd, help me
out with this. The budget, when we were working with the UFR list,
we turned back into the reserves there how much from the UFR list?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seven hundred fifty thousand dollars.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seven hundred fifty?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The unallocated money from the UFR was
725,800 was that remaining balance between the projects you
Page 69
September 27, 2005
allocated.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I remember correctly,
Commissioner Henning wanted to see this money go back to the
taxpayers. I'd like to see it go back to the taxpayers as a form of a
possible money source for the new library for that part that wouldn't
be covered by impact fees when -- at least put into the consideration.
Would you include that in your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's part of it, the
direction of the bonding capability.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's 750,000 that's in the
reserves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. It's part of my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and second by Commissioner Coletta to
provide staff with directions to come back to us with
recommendations as to how this can be accomplished, including all
financial implications, et cetera.
MS. RAMSEY: Can I ask for clarification. The square foot
again was 24,000 square foot on this site; is that the direction?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Seventeen thousand expanded.
MS. RAMSEY: Seventeen thousand expanded in addition to the
existing 7. Okay. Just wanted to clarify.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I get a copy of Ms.
Matthes documents that she presented?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
Page 70
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It carries 4-1. Commissioner
Halas dissenting.
And we're going to take a break now for our court reporter.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session. I believe
we have an 11 o'clock certain, time certain item.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2005-49: THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOARD) ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 04-41, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE (LDC) TO ADD THE AMENDMENTS OF LDC SPECIAL
CYCLE 2A, AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD FOR THE
FOLLOWING PURPOSES. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2.03.07
OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS ADDS IMPLEMENTING
PROVISIONS FOR THREE (3) NEW TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) BONUSES OUTLINED IN THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) AMENDMENT CP-
2004-4. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2.03.08 IS REQUIRED TO
IMPLEMENT THE "GLITCH" AMENDMENT CPSP-2003-11 TO
THE GMP AS WELL AS FURTHER IMPLEMENTING THE TDR
BONUS CREDITS AND RURAL VILLAGE STANDARDS AS
ADOPTED IN THE GMP. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10.02.13
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PROCEDURES IS TO
ADD PROVISIONS FOR PUD EXPIRATION AND RETIREMENT
OF EXCESS NUMBERS OF DWELLING UNITS - ADOPTED
W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That is item 8E. This item to be heard at
Page 71
September 27, 2005
11 a.m. It's a request that the Board of County -- the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending
ordinance number 04-41 as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, to add the amendments of the land development
code special cycle 2- A authorized by the board for the following
purposes:
Amendment of section 2.03.07, overlay zoning district adds
implementing provisions for three new transfer of development rights
bonuses outlined in the growth management plan amendment
CP-2004-4; amendment of section 2.03.08 is required to implement
the glitch amendment, CPSP-2003-11 to the GMP as well as further
implementing the TDR bonus credits and rural village standards as
adopted in the growth management plan; amendment of section
10.02.13 planned unit development procedures is to add provisions for
planned unit development expiration and retirement of excess numbers
of dwelling units.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can I make an introductory
comment concerning this? I was the one who urged the procedures be
developed to -- for the PUD expiration and retirement of excess
number of dwelling units.
At the time that that request was made -- and the board, of
course, supported that request -- none of us was aware of the cost of
doing this, and it turns out the cost is about $825,000. The benefit is
minimal. And there are other ways the staff can compensate for any
errors in the database which is used for the calculation of concurrency.
So if the board would agree with me, I would like to eliminate that
provision from this particular item and we won't spend any time
debating this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Halas, to eliminate
Page 72
September 27,2005
consideration of the so-called ghost housing Unit Ordinance, seconded
by Commissioner Halas.
And 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: Okay. Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
Okay. So we can eliminate that from our presentation, okay.
And go right to the heart of the other issues.
MS. FABACHER: Excellent, thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. For the record, Catherine Fabacher with Zoning and Land
Development review. You certainly simplified my task this morning.
So I did want to give you a brief rundown on, this is the
continuation of your meeting for the public hearing of cycle 2- A, and
that would -- at the last meeting, I think, all the substantive issues had
been discussed on both of the TDR amendments. I think you're about
to take a vote on them, but if you have any questions, you know,
staffs here to answer that for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have four public speakers.
Could we call the first public speaker?
MS. FILSON: The first speaker's Cathy Sellers.
MS. SELLERS: I don't need to speak, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Nancy Payton?
MS. PAYTON: (Speaker waived.)
MS. FILSON: Bruce Anderson?
Page 73
September 27, 2005
MR. ANDERSON: Waive.
MS. FILSON: And Brad Cornell?
MR. CORNELL: (Speaker waived.)
MS. FILSON: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Boy, that's the way it should go.
MS. FABACHER: How lucky am I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's hope it goes like that all day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I'd like to make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously. Thank you.
MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me. Can you clarify? Is that to
approve the whole ordinance with just the two TDC amendments?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. The entire ordinance with the
exception of the ghost --
MS. FABACHER: Right, understood.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- housing unit.
MS. FABACHER: Understood. Thank you so much.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said that more clearly. Thank
you.
MS. FABACHER: That's okay. Thank you so much.
Page 74
September 27, 2005
MR. MUDD: Can he put something on the record?
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, just one more piece of information
to put on the record, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White, that I'm
assuming that the motion maker and second, as well as the board's
vote, included a finding of consistency with the comprehensive plan as
to those LCD provisions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They certainly did.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Item #9 A
RESOLUTION 2005-338: RE-APPOINTED CHERYLE L.
NEWMAN AND PATRICIA SPENCER TO THE GOLDEN GATE
BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
W/W AIVER OF TERM LIMIT
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to agenda item 9A,
and that is appointment of members to the Golden Gate Beautification
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the
committee's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approve the
committee's recommendation by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
MS. FILSON: And does that include waiving section 7B of the
ordinance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's correct. That's part of my
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 75
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And yes, that is included in the
motion and the second.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2005-339 - RE-APPOINTING LINDY ADELSTEIN,
APPOINTING RUSSELL TUFF, RE-APPPOINTING PAUL
MIDNEY TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 9B. It's an appointment of members to the Collier County
Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, Commissioner, I would like to,
for my District 1, I would like to make a motion to accept Lindy
Adelstein.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion for Lindy
Adelstein.
All right. Any other appointments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to accept Russell Tuff
for District 3.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Russell Tuff for District 3.
Any other --
Page 76
September 27, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Paul Midney for District
5.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So those are the three -- we have
three positions and we have three nominations.
Any other nominations?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. Then we'll handle them all at
one time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the three
nominations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve the three
nominations of Lindy Adelstein, Russell Tuff, and Paul Midney by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They are appointed unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2005-340 - APPOINTING MEMBERS: AMY
GARRARD, NINA VELASCO, TODD HOFFMAN AND KEN
O'LEARY TO THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
REGION 24 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
Page 77
September 27, 2005
which is 9C, and that's an appointment of members to the Workforce
Development Board, Region 24.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this is a confirmation of
appointments for four members to the Workforce Development Board.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, and they were recommended by the
EDC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And they are Ms. Amy Garrad, Mr.
Todd Hoffman and Nina Velaso and Ken O'Leary.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I was hoping that there would
be someone, maybe there is, from the audience in regards to how they
have addressed workforce housing in the three-county area of this task
force. Is there anybody?
(N 0 response.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Since this is workforce housing, I
just want to know what accomplishments they've had addressed here
in the years past.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to know that, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When is this board going to come up for
a review by the commissioners? We asked for an annual report from a
certain number of the boards each year.
MS. FILSON: This isn't actually one of the advisory committees
that you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I know.
MS. FILSON: -- created by ordinance, and they historically have
never come before the board for a review.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They've never come before the
board?
MS. FILSON: No. It's like a --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would request that they do.
MS. FILSON: It's a five county --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We don't appoint them.
Page 78
September 27, 2005
MS. FILSON: You only appoint from Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: From Collier County. But we can
request a report from them --
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- concerning their results and activities.
MS. FILSON: And I'll include that in the letter when -- I'll
include that in the letter with the appointments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Why don't we do that.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, well, that's -- I was going to say
the same thing. I guess we've both been talking to Mr. Mudd.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or you've been talking to each other.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no. I'm afraid it was Mr. Mudd.
And I just was going to ask you then also to maybe write to them
and ask them what they have done for affordable housing and to
encourage as well as help find funding or to fund affordable housing
in Collier County.
And so as you -- in your position, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that
you would write to them and get a report from them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I will be happy to do that.
MS. FILSON: I'll include that in the letter, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, thank you very much.
All right. We have a motion for acceptance or approval of the
appointment of these four people. Did we already do that?
MR. MUDD: I haven't heard it yet, sir.
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Page 79
September 27, 2005
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #10A
THIS ITEM IS CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 13,2005
MEETING. AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
WITH THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA FOR 65 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $2J34~500. APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- 9D's been
continued to 11 October. 9E is at one p.m. We finished 9F.
Brings us to 10A. This item continued from the September 13,
2005 BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to approve an amendment
for sale and purchase for -- with the school district -- with the District
School Board of Collier County, Florida, for 65 acres under the
Conservation Collier land acquisition program at a cost not to exceed
$2,134,500. And Ms. Alex Sulecki will present.
MS. SULECKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Alexandra Sulecki. I'm the Coordinator
Page 80
September 27,2005
for the Conservation Collier program.
And this item was before you on September 13th. There were
two questions at that time that you asked me to research further. The
first was the ability to place a road along the northern edge, and the
second was some concern about whether this property might be
designated as sending lands in the future.
And I did address a memo to you that hopefully answered the
questions in regards to the road. And I'm not exactly sure of all the
issues in regards to sending, but I'd be happy to discuss that.
We did kind of focus in the memo on the TDR issue because
that's -- when a property is sending land, that was our concern, that we
would not be voiding TDRs. And, of course, we can't buy them or sell
them.
Sending lands are designated as sending because their
environmental resources are thought to be better, and that's kind of
what we focused on. And, indeed, we did find that.
And I just wanted to answer any questions that you might have
and also just present to you, again, the fact that this property did score
the highest in the second cycle, so it definitely met our criteria, and
that's what we focused on when we selected it for you.
Are there any questions I can answer?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have two public speakers. Nancy
Payton.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And do you want to wait until after the
public speakers to ask your questions or not?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, Mr. Chairman, if you
don't mind, I might have a question for Ms. Payton.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. Oh, okay.
MS. FILSON: Ms. Payton will be followed by Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife
Page 81
September 27,2005
Federation. We've had quite a bit of involvement in section 24.
During the rural fringe planning effort, that particular section did rate
very high and did rise above the level for sending land.
But it became a political issue during the transmittal and adoption
hearings because there was an effort to have these lands dedicated as
receiving lands, but the environmental values were too high.
We also had the issue of the school board site where -- in other
locations in the rural fringe where there was a school site that was not
in a receiving area, it was designated neutral land, and that's the
Kauffman site that the county and the school board bought at the end
of Vanderbilt Beach Extension. That's -- which recently the Talon
parcel went from neutral to sending, and that always had
environmental value, but because of the school site there that was
purchased prior to the end of the planning effort, it went neutral.
As an immediate resolution of the issue and to get the rural fringe
adopted, there was an agreement that it would be temporarily neutral
and that there would be a study done to determine whether it rose to
the level of sending or fell to the level of receiving environmentally or
whether it should stay neutral.
And that study was conducted by a consultant that was engaged
by the county, and it did come back reconfirming that those lands
have high environmental value, and I think that also was proved by the
scoring that it received through the Conservation Collier program.
So I see we have two issues here. One is the immediate issue of
the land that's been proposed for acquisition by Conservation Collier
and the need to revisit section 24, and from our position, needs to be
properly and finally designated sending as its environmental values
say it should be.
It's kind of a dilemma here for me to make a recommendation,
but I think ultimately the commissioners ought to be directing staff to
have that section of land, the compo plan amendment, to have it
designated or redesignated, or excuse me, designated sending because
Page 82
September 27, 2005
it does have high environmental value. And whether you want to go
ahead and purchase that parcel now or wait, I leave that to you.
I will say that anybody who wants to develop that parcel has
tremendous environmental hurdles to overcome because it's very near
a red-cockaded woodpecker colony and it's within the forging area, it's
in the panther evaluation issue. And the county does know through
several studies now, that it is high environmental value.
So my ultimate recommendation is, please let the -- get this
redesignated sending, hopefully in the next cycle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nancy, thank you. The -- we did
direct staff to take a look at this section, because it's neutral, and do an
evaluation. And now you're telling us that that study is either
complete or we know what's the sensitivity on this particular land.
MS. PAYTON: Right. But that study's been completed now for
a year, two years, maybe longer.
And my understanding in the packet, there is a map that does
show some of the information that was produced by the consultant
study. And also during the rural fringe planning effort, the scientific
review that was done by county staff also supported that being
sending. But for political reasons, it went neutral, so I guess that
could be re-confirmed from my perspective.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. PAYTON: And we agreed to -- we agreed to that. We said,
let's have neutral and let's have the study come back and drive what
the designation should be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if it is sending lands, it really
can't be built on anyways. They would have to come back and prove
that it doesn't have that high environmental values. Is it your opinion
__ would it be better to not purchase this since it is going to be
sensitive lands, sending lands, and use that money for things like the
Fleischmann property?
Page 83
September 27, 2005
MS. PAYTON: Well, as I said, there are two different issues
here, that I would be comfortable with abandoning this as a
Conservation Collier acquisition if there was an agreement from the
board that that section needs to be redesignated sending as the science
says it should be, and hopefully the county could receive that parcel as
the bonus TDR, the fourth TDR.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We gave direction to come
back, and I think it was a year time period to -- for the re-evaluation. I
know we're past that, but I know that our staff is very busy.
MS. PAYTON: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if the evaluation from
Conservation Collier says that this is sensitive lands, anything in the
fringe, my opinion, Commissioners, we don't need to buy it. It's going
to be in preserves as per the amendment of the fringe.
So all I'm saying is, let's not waste our money and let's be prudent
with the taxpayers' money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have some other commissioners who
need to speak, but I need to ask a question that ties into that.
I'm troubled by the statement in our packet that the redesignation
of this parcel is at least 18 months away, although we got the
re-evaluation a year ago.
And, secondly, I'm troubled by the fact that the school board is
saying that they have a buyer for this property who's willing to pay
much more than Collier County is willing to pay for it.
So I'm wondering about the impact of those two facts. What can
you tell us?
MS. SULECKI: I don't know about the 18 months. That was
simply an estimate based on how quickly things get through our
cycles.
But as far as the other buyer, that is the information that I
received. There was another buyer. And I would ask that in sending
lands, can you not build golf courses? I think you can. So I think
Page 84
September 27,2005
there's a potential for that to be a golf course.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Payton shakes her head no.
MS. SULECKI: The other thing I just want to add is that sending
lands are part of your ordinance to us, your direction to us to look for
properties within these lands. So even if it is designated to sending
lands, that's identified in our ordinance as properties that are potential
purchases for us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think Commissioner Fiala was next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, never mind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Skip me for now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then I think it was Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually, the reason at the time
that I asked for it to be continued wasn't related to this, although this is
a good item for discussion, because we definitely don't want to spend
the taxpayers' money where it's going to do the least good. So I guess
it's questionable what's going to happen, and I still want to hear more
about that.
But the reason it was pulled was because of the question of
access, and I'm not too sure where we stand if this became a receiving
land, sending land, or whatever. I'm very concerned what's going to
happen if some future commission does want to go with 16th Avenue
all the way through to join up to Green and onto Livingston as a future
corridor.
And we heard from staffby e-mail that they believe that the word
in there, reasonable access, that's a phrase I asked them to include so
the public would be able to access these lands to use them whenever
possible, would be able to cover that.
Now, I want to ask our county attorney, Mr. Weigel, do we have
it so that without a doubt at that point in time some future commission
comes forward, they don't find themselves stymied and can't move
Page 85
September 27,2005
because the land we're talking about turning either into sending lands
or turning into Conservation Collier preserve lands.
Is that going to eliminate our possibility or make it extremely
difficult to be able to get the right-of-way for a future road?
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner, I don't think that a redesignation
would alter the ability of the county to have access; however, the
review has shown that although there is -- exists what can be
considered, described as legal unimproved access -- and Alex may
wish to jump in -- it appears, however, that the county would have to
__ or potentially have to acquire a more assured access to provide the
kind of access that's typically contemplated by Conservation Collier
program, which is not mere access that meets a minimal legal
requirement, but the access that's appropriate for citizens of --
residents of the county, including ADA type of access.
Typically, when we create or purchase property for use by the
county's residents and taxpayers, it's not merely to go down a
troublesome path of physical access but would include, conceptually
and actually, improved access.
And it's my understanding that that is problematical with this
property at the present time because there is not an absolute -- an
absolute, if you want to call it, un -- singular -- singular ownership
access to the property. It has a relationship to the South Florida Water
Management District, and they, in fact, have had access in that area,
but their access technically, arguably, goes over a patch of private
property. Is that not correct, Alex?
MS. SULECKI: Yes, that was a factual issue that we found out
last week. We had originally thought it was in your packets that that's
a South Florida Water Management District easement, and they use it
as if it were, but it's actually -- it's access -- it's deeded access over part
of it, and part of it, it's just a road over people's property. We do have
unimproved legal access, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I know that. That's not the
Page 86
September 27, 2005
question. I want to know if -- and I'm hearing a very, very long
answer, and it scares the daylights out of me because the terminology
used is, not quite evasive, but it doesn't seem to be direct.
I want to know that if my action to turn this into, first, Collier --
Collier 2000 preservation property, if 16th Street at some point in time
would be able to be extended, or like Mr. Weigel said, it's
problematic. If that's the case and we don't know the answer, I'm
going to vote against it.
The next question would be, if this is turned into a sending land,
at that point in time, would that designation allow us access through,
and if that's the case, too, and we can't provide for it at the time it's
turned over or whatever, I think I would vote against that also.
I'm not going to box in a commission 20 years from now from
being able to do the right thing.
MS. SULECKI: On the first issue, I thought we had answered
you. The memo provided a legal opinion that we could, at this point
in time, without any changes to any ordinance, we could sell a portion
of that roadway for access to the transportation department, and then
also, that what we are working on in the exceptional benefits
ordinance would provide for that, and that's the goal of that ordinance.
I did have some conversations with transportation, and we asked,
could they not buy this up front, right now? That would be your 100
percent. The problem with that -- and they could, but it's not
designated as a road yet --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
MS. SULECKI: -- so that is not a preferred option.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we include it in some sort
of agreement that we're putting together now, where they have the
right to come back and do it, so that 20 years from now, or whenever
that period of time is, that this isn't going to become an impediment to
any new roads that mayor may not have to be put in?
MS. SULECKI: You mean added on a deed or something?
Page 87
_,o,,_..___._~. ___0'
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
MS. SULECKI: Okay. That would be a legal question, and I'm
not sure. Perhaps--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why couldn't you put an easement on
the document that acquires it, an easement in favor of the county?
MR. PETTIT: For the record, Mike Pettit, chief assistant county
attorney. Let me just very briefly state what my opinion was on this.
My opinion was very simple. Right now there is not reasonable
public access to this property. I can't take -- get in my car with my
family, go park and go use this property, okay.
Given that fact and given that your ordinance ultimately
contemplates that we have that kind of access to this property if
Conservation Collier acquires it for that program, I believe it would
benefit the property if at some point in the future we were building a
road that would provide that reasonable public access; therefore, I
think you could sell it off. That's the logic.
If in the interim, Commissioner, reasonable public access is
provided by another means, for example, improvement of the legal
unimproved access we have now, then I believe that would no longer
be an option. The fallback would be an ordinance that's still only in
the planning stages that you've directed us to bring back to the board.
Assuming the board would adopt that ordinance, there would be then a
mechanism to sell off that right-of-way.
If the question is today, as we enter into this purchase, could we
assign or designate a portion for road right-of-way, it's been my
opinion that when we acquire conservation property, if we do it jointly
__ this is a little confusing because it's the county that holds title to all
of this property.
But, for example, if we were simultaneously going forward with
transportation dollars and Conservation Collier dollars, I don't see any
problem there at the time the property's acquired.
The issue is that once we acquire it for the program, you don't --
Page 88
September 27,2005
you aren't in a position to sell it off unless you can demonstrate a
benefit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we, for one dollar, have
the option to be able to have the right-of-way sometime in the future?
Because transportation can't go ahead and start dedicating a
right-of-way when they haven't even got through a study that's going
to go on for a long, long time to come.
This is just one of those options that we have to keep open. And
I just don't want to see it come down to the point where we hurt
ourselves over this.
Could we possibly tie this option up for the right-of-way along
100 feet of that, what side, north side of the property, whatever would
be realistic, by just including it in the sale price for one dollar, the
county would be able to have that option for 20 years in the future or
something; is there something like that that could be done?
MR. PETTIT: I'm going to be honest, Commissioner. The
problem I have with that solution is that the dollars you're using for
the Conservation Collier property are dedicated ad valorem dollars to
buy Conservation Collier property. And what you really would be
doing then is using Conservation Collier dollars to fund county
right-of-way. That's how I would understand the suggestion. This is a
frustrating suggestion, I understand that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we'll use one dollar from
transportation's budget to be able to tie it up.
MR. PETTIT: But the original -- but the total cost of the school
board property would be from Conservation Collier dollars, is what
I'm --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does anyone have a solution to
this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But Commissioner Halas might have a
solution. He's next.
Page 89
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned when you sayan
opinion. I'd like to see it based on case law. I think that we need to
clarify that very strongly.
I have the same concerns that Commissioner Coletta has, and that
is addressing future transportation needs here in Collier County, and
that all hinges on the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens here.
And I don't want to be tied up in some kind of a legal battle
sometime down the road stating that, oh, by the way, since we
purchased this property, you can no longer access this property with a
road that will continue on to serve the people in the estates area.
So I guess that's where I stand on it. I need to have something
that's very concrete, that if we did go ahead with this, that we have the
ability to go in there and purchase some right-of-way. Because when I
hear the word high environmental value, then I get concerned that we
may run into a problem where we can never access a right-of-way on
the northern end to put a road through in the future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, let me ask you a
question, Alex.
MS. SULECKI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rather than just designating it as
sending, if we purchased it through Conservation Collier, then it
would be properly maintained. Am I correct in that assumption?
MS. SULECKI: Yes, because we would be managing it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
MS. SULECKI: It's not being managed now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I knew that was your answer, but I
just wanted to put that on the record.
So then I don't see why we can't buy the property with the
understanding, it's written into the purchase price that we will then sell
Page 90
September 27,2005
off, at a fair market value to our transportation department at some
point in the future whenever they need it, the portion to build this road
if, indeed, that's where it's going to be built, for fair market value, and
that money goes back into Conservation Collier for future purchases.
MS. SULECKI: I would be totally comfortable with that because
it's not the position of Conservation Collier to stand in the way of
future infrastructure needs in this county, and that is the reason why
we're bringing the exceptional ordinance -- benefits ordinance back to
you to address that very issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How does that hit you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, write it into the
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Write it into the agreement that we'll
purchase this property with the proviso that at some point in time if
transportation department wants to buy, if that's where they're going
to, indeed, put a road, and we're hoping that they will, that they can
purchase that property and it can -- that -- but at a fair -- not at a
dollar, but at a fair market value, so that then that money can go back
into Conservation Collier for other purchases.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I like the idea, the only
thing is, we still haven't resolved the fact whether it's going to be
Conservation Collier or we're going to be looking for the -- making it
into sending lands.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the first thing I talked about
was, if by having Conservation Collier purchase the property, then it
will be under the maintenance program so that we'll have all the
exotics cleared off and it will be properly maintained.
So I want to purchase it. So, in fact -- oh, we have another
speaker, don't we.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have three more speakers and
Page 91
,.,..,.,..""",,-.- "'--.-
September 27, 2005
Commissioner Halas wants to speak. He hasn't had an opportunity
because some of the other commissioners have been talking so much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern -- and the -- I don't
believe my question was answered, in that we need to have case law.
And I want to make sure that the -- all of our options are open, if we
purchase this land, that we can get -- acquire the right-of-way at a
reasonable cost to the taxpayers to put a road through that property.
MS. SULECKI: Can I add one thing to that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, please.
MS. SULECKI: Hopefully answer one part of that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, please.
MS. SULECKI: I did learn something when I met with the other
staff about the exceptional benefits ordinance, and we talked about
greater than a one-to-one benefit for the program.
And what I learned was that even at that rate, better than
one-to-one, the county would actually be saving money because it
costs a lot of money to condemn road right-of-way. So it actually
provides a little bit of benefit there.
And we might want to look at Palm Beach County, because that's
where we got our -- the basis for our exceptional benefits ordinance,
because they had this issue over there, and this is the way they've dealt
with it. So it seemed like a very good way to present to you to deal
with this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Even though it has a rating now of
a high environmental value?
MS. SULECKI: I don't believe that, whoever owned, that would
change if you were going for road right-of-way. Would it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't know, that's why I want this
addressed now so that we have an understanding so that when all of a
sudden, if something happens down the road five or eight years from
now, all of a sudden somebody comes in and says, you can't put a road
through there because it has a high environmental value on the
Page 92
September 27,2005
northern fringe of that.
MS. SULECKI: Well, the exceptional benefits ordinance, what
that will do is provide a method for you to evaluate whether this is
definitely necessary, whether other things have been tried, to mitigate.
Avoidance and mitigation is basically it.
And then the decision is actually up to you as the county
commission under that exception benefits ordinance once those things
have been satisfied. So I don't -- I don't see that really as a problem.
If that road needs to go through there, that's what the ordinance is
designed to do, to enable that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that will be based on case law,
right, probably from Palm Beach, if we --
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner, again, Mike Pettit for record. To
my knowledge there's no case law on these issues. You need to
understand we're dealing with a -- unique ordinances. We have our
own ordinance there are no cases -- there have been -- case law arises
from litigation. There have been no litigation on the county's
Conservation Collier implementation ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm talking about Palm Beach,
since we're going to basically craft our ordinance from what we've
read about Palm Beach.
MR. PETTIT: To my knowledge there is no case law on that
ordinance either, however, I will run another computer check to see.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have three more public
speakers.
MS. FILSON: Actually, I only have one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The others probably got tired of waiting
and left.
MS. FILSON: Brad Cornell.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I might, while the speaker's
coming forward. David Weeks of your comprehensive planning
Page 93
September 27, 2005
department. I just wanted to correct one statement. Sending lands do
not allow a golf course. Those are limited to neutral and receiving.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Brad?
MR. CORNELL: Hello, Commissioners. Brad Cornell, again,
on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society, and I wanted to agree
with Nancy Payton about the need to redesignate this as sending;
however, I also want to -- and we have the study that has been
completed. You've already discussed that, so I think there's plenty of
support and data that indicate that that's what we need to do.
However, we need to more immediately respond to the proposal
to purchase this for Conservation Collier, and Audubon recommends
that you do purchase this, because our understanding is that there is a
great likelihood that this would be sold to a developer or somebody
else who was not going to take this as conservation land, at least as the
primary purpose or land use.
And I think that it's a wise investment for the program and for the
people of Collier County and for the resources that are there, as you've
already noted, are high environmentally valuable resources that
Conservation Collier purchases.
I think the access issues, we have heard Alex and Mike Pettit and
others opine that they are solvable. We have -- and Commissioner
Fiala presented one scenario. I think that those are very reasonable
ways to go about -- this exceptional benefits ordinance should provide
the means to evaluate how we would do this, and I think this would be
a wise purchase.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. We have
one minute to wrap this up.
Commissioner Fiala, can you do that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion that we
purchase this property with the clause in the purchase agreement that
Page 94
September 27,2005
if at some point in time the transportation department wants to buy this
property, we will, indeed, sell it to them at fair market value, and that
money will go back into the Conservation Collier till to be used to
purchase other property.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The second by Commissioner
Halas.
And there's discussion. I would like to point out a couple of
things. You cannot, I don't think, specify fair market value because if
there's going to be an exception benefit to Conservation Collier, it will
be something other than fair market value, it will be an --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My second reflects that. You're
absolutely right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, the other thing I would like
to emphasize is that we're talking about an entire section; 640 acres
last time I counted.
MS. SULECKI: Sixty-five acres.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. Section 24 consists of 640 acres.
And you're talking about 65 acres, right?
MS. SULECKI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So there's 585 acres left there
somewhere. So although you devise a way to get access through this
small parcel of land, what happens on either side of this small parcel
of land? That has not been resolved and we cannot resolve it now.
So my position is that I don't know how I can support this
because it has not resolved the issue of the road extensions really
because you've got more properties to have to deal with than just this
one, if I understand this correctly.
But more than that, if you designate the entire section 24 as
sending areas, it appears to me that you get the environmental
protection you're -- you're wanting to get without spending over $2
Page 95
September 27, 2005
million to get it. You're doing it through zoning, and zoning which is
essentially based upon sound science, I would guess.
So that's -- that's my -- my feeling on this issue, that I think it
would be unfortunate to spend $2 million on purchasing a piece of
property to preserve it when, in fact, we might be able to preserve the
entire 640 acres without spending a penny.
MS. SULECKI: We would not at that time have public access,
so we wouldn't have a place for the public to go hiking, and that was
one of our criteria.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you know, I guess so. But I'm not
sure I'm willing to pay $2 million so somebody can go hiking, you
know. There are lots of places where people can go hiking.
But nevertheless, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, what bothers me
is, we're not knowledgeable of land use, and particularly the fringe,
when we're going after properties, and it's my understanding, even the
amendments that we just did, Commissioner, the TDR amendments is
preservation, restoration, and access. There will be access.
Properties, if they're given to a government agency, and
including Collier County, why wouldn't we want to give access to the
people, limited access to the people if it's sending lands, if it's in our
hands? Why wouldn't we do that? I don't understand.
I think we've got a lot of priorities. I think the charge was to try
to preserve as much sensitive lands in Collier County that can be built
on.
And this piece, to me, when it has cockaded woodpeckers on it,
is going to be a real challenge trying to get it through Nancy Payton
and Brad Cornell to make that happen, and I can understand that. That
was our charge in the fringe, is to save good uplands for native
species. It's going to happen.
I'm not going to spend $2 million when we have on our plate
other top priorities and we can get more land. I'm not going to support
Page 96
September 27, 2005
the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would, at some point in time
after we discuss this, like to have brought back, possibly designating
all of that land as sending land. I don't know how -- you know, what
lawsuits are involved, and that's what I'm concerned with here. You
know, what kind of lawsuits we would be facing by doing that, but I
think we need to address that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you talked about the sending lands
and the study that was done. From what I understand, that will be
designated as a sending land in the EAR-based amendments that you
will see as we're going through it. And you've seen the EAR-based
amendment list that Joe has provided as to how this lays out over a 12
to 14 month period of time. So you're going to basically talk about
transmitting that in September of 2006.
But David, if you could help me here a little bit.
MR. WEEKS: Sure. Again, for the record, David Weeks,
Comprehensive Planning Department. As the County Manager just
stated, we do intend to bring that to you as part of the EAR-based
amendments, section 24, to be redesignated as sending, so that's just a
matter of -- that's on our plate already. We will bring it to you.
As you're well aware, that study, as has been discussed, was
mandated, it's been done, and it does show the value that's there. I
also wanted to point out that even when property is designated as
sending lands, there is still some development potential there. One
dwelling unit per 40 acres, granted it's minimal, but also it allows
agricultural uses consistent with the Florida Right to Farm Act.
So just simply because a property is designated sending does not
necessarily result in its protection. And as you're aware, you recently
adopted -- well, today you adopted into the LDC the TDR bonuses.
One of those bonuses is the restoration and maintenance. You get a
bonus for doing that. If someone chooses not to opt for that bonus,
Page 97
September 27,2005
then presumably that property is not going to be maintained. That's
the real distinction.
The flaw that we saw in the sending lands designation as part of
our TDR program was that, on the one hand, we limited uses on those
properties, but we did nothing to ensure the viability of that habitat.
For example, the natural fire regime, the removal of the exotic
vegetation such as Melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, et cetera, restoring
hydrology. So that even though a property might have a good habitat
value today, if nothing is done to maintain it, then that value may
decrease over time.
And that's the main point, is the sending lands designation in and
of itself does not ensure the long-term protection of the property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My motion stands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
Thank you very much, David.
Okay. I'm going to call the motion. We don't have any more
public speakers, right?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I
need to get --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think is passes 3-2, with Commissioner
Coyle and Commissioner Henning dissenting.
And with that, we're going to break for lunch. Thank you very
much.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you very much.
Page 98
September 27,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll be back here promptly at one p.m.;
one p.m.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, County
Manager.
We have a time certain item at the present time?
Item #9E
DISCUSS REDARDING THE TAKING BY EMINENT DOMAIN
ACTION OF THE LAND CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY
CARIBBEAN GARDENS AND OTHER SUROUNDING LANDS
THAT WOULD SERVE A PUBLIC PURPOSE - MOTION MADE
TO BOND UP TO $40 MILLION AND LET THE TRUST FOR
PUBLIC LANDS MAKE AN OFFER OF $59,913,333.00 FOR THE
PROPERTY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That is item 9E, and that's to discuss the
taking by eminent domain action of the land currently occupied by
Caribbean Gardens and other surrounding lands that would serve a
public purpose and to provide guidance to staff, and that's an item that
you wanted to talk about during this meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is Commissioner Henning going
to join us?
MS. FILSON: Yes. He said he would be here momentarily.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well.
Then I would like to make a couple of introductory remarks,
since this was placed on the agenda at my request.
Now, there are lots of reasons why we want to preserve this
Page 99
September 27, 2005
property that we call the Fleischmann parcel, and the Caribbean
Gardens and zoo. And the process we have had to follow is in
accordance with law, and it is highly inefficient and ultimately very
expensive for the people, taxpayers of Collier County.
The -- we believe that we have done everything possible to reach
a conclusion in the purchase of this property to the extent of having
three different appraisals, of course, having a referendum to get the
taxpayer support on this process.
But the property owner has shown no interest in negotiation.
They have taken the position that the only appraisal that can possibly
be correct is their appraisal, and their appraisal we believe to be
flawed in many very substantial ways. And our staff has indicated
that they believe that the property owner's appraisal is inflated,
perhaps as much as 15- to $18 million.
And that appraisal is based upon certain assumptions concerning
densities which have not traditionally been granted by this board. It's
based on getting permits such as building a bridge and a road across
the Gordon River in environmentally sensitive property. That is
problematic. And for these reasons, the value of the property appears
to us to be greatly inflated.
So we have reached the -- reached the point where the only
remaining option appears to be eminent domain.
Now, despite the representations in -- by some people and our
newspaper, this has nothing to do with the very unpopular Kilo
decision of the Supreme Court recently. There is no connection
whatsoever between the actions we would contemplate, if, in fact, we
do contemplate them, with that Kilo proceeding.
Any eminent domain action which this board might authorize
would be conducted in accordance with Florida Statutes, which have
been on the books for many, many years and make it very clear that
the taking of property for a clear public purpose is within the right of
local governments.
Page 100
September 27,2005
It is a fair process which is established under Florida law. It does
not involve in this case the taking of any property from an unwilling
seller. The Fleischmann family wants to sell the property. We want
to buy it. The only thing that we have not been able to agree upon is
the price, and therein lies the benefit to an eminent domain action
because it provides for a determination of a fair price.
It doesn't permit us to take it without consideration of a fair price.
It merely says that if the two sides cannot agree upon a fair price, the
fair price will be determined by a jury in a court of law, and the jury
consisting of citizens. So this is a step toward trying to arrive at a fair
pnce.
And so, in summary, what I have put before the board for
consideration today is to provide guidance to the staff to evaluate the
eminent domain option for a portion or all of this property and present
those recommendations to the board at a future meeting.
There is not likely to be any eminent domain decision made here
today because the board hasn't -- hasn't -- or staff has not presented the
appropriate information to the board.
So it's merely a request to provide guidance to the board -- or to
the staff to evaluate the option and bring back to us appropriate
recommendations concerning the eminent domain option.
So with that, if commissioners -- Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas was first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Chairman Coyle, I would like to
extend an olive branch and try one more time to see if we can address
this issue in a manner in which maybe the Fleischmanns will
reconsider.
I'd like to put a -- throw something out here to the board that we
up the ante to $59 million, and I believe that's what the county
attorney -- or excuse me -- the county manager had said in the prior
Board of Commissioners, that we would be closer to what the third
Page 101
September 27,2005
proposal was, and I believe that 59 million also was based on the
appraisal by the Fleischmanns.
I would like to try one more time to see if $59 million may be the
deciding factor where at least we can start to negotiate, and I'd like to
throw that out there.
Before we get into eminent domain, I feel highly responsible that
we need to make sure that we look at all aspects here as far as property
rights. I understand exactly where you're coming from. I think it's a
great idea to pursue this, but I'd like just one more time to see if -- I
believe it's $59 million, if I'm correct -- 59 mill -- almost $60 million.
Let's round it off to $60 million and see if we can start negotiating.
I think that would help alleviate the problem, because I think if
we get into eminent domain, then we might lose some of our
capabilities of acquiring funds to purchase this property.
And that's all I have to say at this point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's my understanding
they're not going to take less than what their appraiser offered. Maybe
a compromise is offer them the amount which is recommended.
But Commissioner Coyle has made a great observation. It's
getting down where, you know, where we're extending an olive
branch, what we think is more than fair except for the family doesn't
want to negotiate. They have a bottom line.
I think that we can do a parallel, Commissioner. And your
observation is correct, that we have to do this out in the open to where
the family doesn't have to do that, any discussions they have. So it
puts us in an unfair advantage, but there's no reason why the county
attorney, with the assistance of the county manager, can't give us
information about the eminent domain and what -- the cost of those
eminent domains, to each individual commissioner.
Therefore, if they don't accept the 59 or almost $60 million, that
we still have another consideration with all of our knowledge of what
Page 102
September 27, 2005
it's going to cost that we go through the process of eminent domain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Commissioner Halas is going
in the same direction I was thinking of going, offering the olive branch
one more time.
And my figure, in my head, was 62 million, like splitting the
difference between two. But I'd go along with his 60. But I figured
62 million, and I tried to figure out how much money that we could
get from all of our sources to make sure that we can substantiate a $62
million figure.
You know, money coming from the different grants that we
could obtain, as well as Conservation Collier, transportation, South
Florida Water Management District, Big Cypress Basin. Anyplace
that we could get the money together so that we could buy this and we
could show the taxpayers that we've done it with monies that we've
been able to obtain from outside sources, not take any more from the
40 million that they approved us to buy, and at the same time that
we're doing this -- and I thought of the 62 because I thought that was
closer to their figure -- possibly they might accept that.
But at the same time, have our county manager and our county
attorney explore eminent domain possibilities and explain all of that to
us. I don't understand anything about eminent domain, and I'd need it
to be explained at length. But this way then we've got a second option
there waiting in the wings in case they don't care for the $62 million
figure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Well, I have great concerns over this direction of going for
eminent domain. We do it all the time. We take the right-of-way for
roads. Generally we can't reach an agreed purchase price with the
property owners, and so we go to court and we have to pay for their
appraiser, we pay for their attorney, we pay for their court costs.
Page 103
September 27, 2005
And when the day ends, we generally have spent a lot more
money than what it would have cost us any other way.
But going back to the actual cost of the property, the reason the
property is so expensive, let's be honest about it, the public hysteria
out there to buy it regardless of any price.
If you were the Fleischmanns and you were sitting back and you
were listening to all the people out there saying, regardless of the
price, buy it, you'd say, well, what's the very highest possible price we
could get based upon the biggest allowable use that we could get from
the Collier County Commission.
And based upon that, probably their estimate is pretty darn close.
And Commissioner Coyle said it before about the fact that what they
are basing their price on, it would never happen in realty. I mean,
there's just -- even -- every development that takes place out there, a
PUD, we'd hold them down as far as the amount of area they can
occupy, we're very restrictive as far as the height. There's tremendous
amount of restrictions that the public demands that we do, plus we
also expect that there's going to be a public benefit.
So in reality, when we get down to the reality of the situation,
you know, who is going to buy that property and think they could ever
develop it at that price when they have to come back through all the
permitting agencies, including the Collier County Commission? I
don't think there's any basis for the price they're asking. I even
question the $57 million, or $59 million, whatever we're talking about
today.
Also, we are committed for 40 million, absolutely, 100 percent.
But we've got to keep in mind, other than possibly some grant money,
the other money that's coming from the other governmental authorities
out there is money that's either been allotted for other purposes or
coming from a reserve. So it's not exactly free, unincumbered funds.
So at all times when we're making our decisions, we have to keep
this all in mind.
Page 104
September 27,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is, when we get into
eminent domain, I look at that as, it has to deal with the health, safety,
and welfare. And I think that if we do go that process at this point in
time, this may be tied up in litigation for anywheres from two to four
years.
And if we can cut our costs now, let's try one more time to see if
we can have the other side -- hopefully we can move them off of the
area in which they are standing at the present time, and see if we can
go forward. I think that we're going to tie this thing up. It's going to
cost us a lot more than the 67 million. Let's see if we can come to a
gentlemen's agreement and a lady's agreement in regards to this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think this discussion is a perfect
example of why the government cannot strike a good deal in the
market for acquisition of property, because we're always in the
position of making offers publicly and demonstrating our weakness in
our ability to make a decision, a business decision --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to move forward.
So we have -- we really have a choice. We can -- we can do one
of two things. We can acquiesce and provide the buyer whatever it is
they want to charge us, or we can use the tools that we have available
to us to try to get a better deal.
There is no likelihood, in my opinion, that the legal costs
associated with this acquisition will approach anywhere near the $15
million over-valuation of this property. I think there are many good
reasons to demonstrate that we should not be wasting taxpayer money,
that we can, in fact, achieve our objectives in a better way.
But if the majority of the commissioners would prefer to
acquiesce, I mean, after all, what have we done so far?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've done it all and they've done
nothing.
Page 105
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And already you're saying, we're caving
in again. You want to throw some more money at them. And then
what they're going to say is, why bother? We'll just wait a few months
and you'll throw some more money at us because they know you don't
have the courage to stand up and take the action that is available to us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just jump in. I know that
somebody else's button is on. Courage isn't the point here. You could
have all the courage you want, but we just do not want to lose that
property, period. That's so important to us. When will we ever have
an opportunity to buy 166 acres right in the heart of town again? It
doesn't take courage. We just don't have anybody negotiating with us.
So it's either, do we want to bite the bullet or do we not, I think.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, no, you've got some options.
You're not going to lose the property if you proceed with eminent
domain. There's no way you'll lose it. If you proceed with eminent
domain, you will buy it. The only thing --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean eminent domain, just a
piece of it, like you're talking about with the zoo, if they said they'll
only sell the whole property?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. You can eminent domain any
portion of it you wish, but there are consequences, and that's why
we've asked -- or I would propose we ask staff to take a look at this
and advise -- and advise us and provide us some guidance on it.
But, yes, we can do that, but there are some counterclaims and
potential penalties associated with doing that.
But the point is, that it just defies logic, as far as I'm concerned,
why anybody would want to say, you've refused to negotiate with me
so far, so I'll just throw some more money at you and maybe pretty
soon we'll settle in a price of 67 million rather than of 67.5. So I just
-- it is completely illogical to me.
But Commissioner Henning wants to say something.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I think your analogy is
Page 106
September 27, 2005
correct. But what do you think about putting this on -- just on a
parallel track? Just get the information and still show some good faith
that we want to negotiate with another offer?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think it's very -- yeah, I thinks
that's very clear. You see, we will not reach a point of eminent
domain until this board meets again in a public meeting and says,
we're going to file the papers. That will be a month away, maybe two
months away.
And, of course, any seller who is reasonable would apparently
evaluate their exposure and come back to with us an offer to sit down
and talk. But why would they do that if we're just going to throw
money at them up front? You know, it makes no sense to me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You're not asking us to
take action on this --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, absolutely not, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- today, and that's what -- I'm
just saying, I think that we need some more information on it, but also,
for the public --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you're saying the same thing I
said before, offer them 60 million or 62 million, but start figuring out
how we can -- if they don't want to negotiate with us --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't have a majority of it,
and I'm -- I'll tell you, I know what Commissioner Coletta --
Commissioner Coyle is doing. He's very good at what he does, and I
think that we should consider what he's saying and -- but still offer
them another offer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Any offer -- so actually that's what I
said before, go --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You and I are on the same page
but nobody else is. We're sitting over here by ourselves. But you
need a majority.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But we're both saying pursue
Page 107
September 27, 2005
eminent domain information, getting it back to us?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But offer them a different amount?
Okay. Then we are on the same page.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You defeat the entire purpose. You
defeat the entire purpose. I mean, already now you have said, yeah,
we're willing to pay 62 million for this, so we go into court and try to
argue 52 million, we're sunk. We're dead. You've already undermined
our strategy. So if you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, that's the problem with being in
the public, because you can't really do what you're talking about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Look -- you see, that's the point of
eminent domain, because once you get into eminent domain, we can
have executive sessions and talk about this.
Why don't we just offer them 67.5 million and get it done?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There you go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not going to get anywhere with
this. It's -- you know, we've -- okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was -- I just wanted to explore,
Chairman, what you put forth in regards to the 40 million. And I
assume that you were just looking at purchasing the zoo and possibly
some other lands and not buying the -- the whole piece of property; is
that correct? Am I understanding that maybe holding the price down
to a total of $40 million, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I can tell you right now that I don't
believe we can support a price of $40 million for the zoo. I don't think
the zoo is anywhere near that value. I think you're talking about
substantially less money for the zoo property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then maybe what we need to do is
decide what we want to carve out of this thing and see if -- I know
there's some sensitive lands that we also would like to acquire -- and
go back out there and look at the price of just the zoo and maybe a
Page 108
September 27, 2005
little bit of adjoining property and the sensitive lands and see where
we can get, to see if we can get a lot closer to what we originally
thought about -- that the voters approved of.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm afraid that if we go to eminent
domain, that we're going to go through a whole crisis here again of
going out and getting estimates and as -- the longer this carries on, the
price tag is going to continue to accelerate, so that's where my
concerns are.
And I'm just -- you know, here we are in an open discussion in
the sunshine. Yes, it puts us at a disadvantage. But, you know, we've
got to look at all these different options. I wish we could talk.
We don't have the ability like the legislature does up in
Tallahassee where we can go behind closed doors and talk about this.
We have to bring it out in the open.
So I'm just trying to figure out Commissioner Coyle -- where his
thought process is so maybe all of us can come to some type of
agreement. And the only reason that I opened this discussion up is
because we know that this thing is really not going anyplace, and I
was just hoping that maybe with the olive branch there, that we could
do something, and I don't know -- at this point in time, I'll just be quiet
and see where the chairman is leading us to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's like herding cats. I'm not leading you
anywhere.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Meow. Well, this cat is in
agreement with Commissioner Halas. I think that we're talk making --
we're going down the wrong road with the idea of eminent domain.
I don't think that's going to get us where we need to be at the end.
It's just going to cause a lot of heartbreak, plus going to lose the ability
to tap into that grant money that's out there that -- what was that
foundation that was going to do the work for us, Community Trust?
Page 109
September 27, 2005
MR. MUDD: The Trust for Public Lands, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Trust for Public Lands, and I
believe that they were going to withdraw any support if we were going
to follow the condemnation.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I got a letter yesterday that basically said that
they withdraw support because they have a -- they have a bylaw in
their charter that basically says that once you get into the eminent
domain actions, that they must withdraw.
But they did say in their letter that they would be willing to -- if
that action should pass or whatever, that they would come back and
they'd be willing to work with us again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I commend Commissioner
Coyle for trying to find another avenue to get the people to the table to
talk about it.
But I think Commissioner Halas has got the right idea. We've
got a limited number of funds to be able to work with. Possibly it
wouldn't be the worst thing in this world if we bellied up with a
developer and realize exactly what we need as far as lands in the back,
the zoo, and see what could be done where we could take our 40
million and a little bit of money out there that everybody else is
willing to put in, and make it work. I don't think we need to empty
our treasury or everyone else's treasury out there to make this happen
on a whim. I think it needs a little more planning behind it, I really
do.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There doesn't seem to be any support for
eminent domain. I think that --
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- we may as well proceed with some
other alternative.
MR. MUDD: Well, if you're going to make an offer that's above
the last offer that you made, which was --
Page 110
September 27, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fifty-six million dollars.
MR. MUDD: -- fifty-six million dollars, you need a
supermajority vote from this board, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, then -- I'm not making that motion.
But I think -- I think we have already just sealed our fate on this issue,
and I think I know where we're going to go ultimately and it's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Tell us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to pay $67.5 million for it
if you want it or you're going to lose it. That's what's going to happen.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So then let's discuss amongst
us. Do we feel that even though we abhor the way this has been
going, we all agree we don't want to lose the property. Do we want to
bite this bullet and give these -- I'll skip the words that I want to say
there -- people what they're -- what they're asking, even though they're
burning us badly, to keep this property within our community for our
future generations to enjoy? Do you want to go ahead and do that and
pay the full price as Commissioner Coyle just said?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's -- they have representatives sitting
in this audience right now who are going to go back and say, these
people will pay you $67 and a half million because they will not
pursue other options. That's what they're going to tell them.
I've got a couple more. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the end result is, what kind of
a value do we put on this property 20 years from now? If we end up
giving them the full payment -- I'm hoping that the Blue Ribbon
Committee has raised some public funds on this also because that was
one of the areas that -- that I stated early on that, and I would hope that
the people who represented the Blue Ribbon Committee put together a
packet to raise money to put this on the ballot, and I was hoping that
they would raise funds to offset the cost.
When we look at this property, it's very, very expensive, and wen
Page 111
September 27, 2005
need the support of the public also. We're going to dig and find out
exactly how -- where we're going to acquire the funds. We also need
the public to get adamantly involved in this and come forward with
some funding also.
I think it would behoove the whole community to get involved in
this process. Since everybody wants to save this property, let's
everybody step up to the plate. It just can't be put on the shoulders of,
quote, the government. It needs to be put on by the private sector also.
If you look at the price of the property today and you come back
20 years from now, people are probably going to say, you know, that
was the greatest buy we made, even though it cost us an arm and a leg
today.
And I'm really pleading with the people out there. I know there's
people out there that are devoted to saving this property. It's time that
they come forward with money to help offset the purchase of this
property.
If everybody thinks that it's this important, then everybody has to
get up -- everybody has to belly up to get to the funding of this. I
think it's important. I think it leaves a legacy not only for the -- us, the
commissioners, but it leaves a legacy on the whole community, on
trying to save something. And I think it's -- and I think maybe that's
where we need to go, and let's get this over with.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's hard to follow that. You
know, you did a wonderful job of laying it out. There is a
commitment on the part of the commission to do something about it;
however, there's a financial responsibility to make sure that we don't
put ourselves in jeopardy as far as our whole budget goes. We've got
$40 million set aside for this particular project.
Now, as Commissioner Halas mentioned, we need the other
people to step forward in the community, we need to be able to find
funds out there to cover the $27 and a half million shortfall, because
Page 112
September 27,2005
the truth of the matter is, if we come back and we say, okay, we're
going to be responsibility for all of it from Collier County
government's side, that's not going to work.
We've got a budget. We've got one of the lowest ad valorem
taxes in all the State of Florida, and there's a good reason for it,
because we're very, very careful with the taxpayers' money.
Now, what are we going to do, go back into this budget and
suddenly lop off a whole bunch of needed projects at the expense of
the parks? Hardly think so. I wouldn't be in agreement to that. Still
committed to the 40 million, but I would like to see the balance made
up by the public and other entities.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To answer Commissioner Fiala's
question, there's no way that I'm going to allow somebody to fleece
the taxpayers 67 -- over $67 million. So if it ever gets to that point,
I'm not in, and I'm not willing to hold that property for 20 years to --
for it to catch up to that price of 67.
When I buy a car or a steak or something, I'm buying at today's
price. I'm not buying it at 20 years' price. There's no benefit there.
So I don't see anything happening, and we need to move on. I'm
going to make a motion that we offer 59 million and kick this can
down the road, 59,913,333, and that's a motion. And like I said --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I'm going to kick it down the
road, but you ain't going to see me going up there to buy it at 20 year
prices from now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you include in your
motion the stipulation that the balance of the money over $40,000 will
come from other sources?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That -- Commissioner, that
really needs to be a direction by the Board of Commissioners. And if
Page 113
September 27,2005
you think about it, we already stated that we're only going to bond the
capability, a bond of $40 million, so we have to get it someplace else.
That's -- I'm not -- I'm not going to put it in my motion. I don't think it
belongs in this discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So where would the rest of the
money come from over the 40?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The county manager has
recognized some certain funds. Airport Authority, one, Public Lands
of Trust.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you include them in your
motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: South Florida Water Management.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: South Florida Water
Management. And Commissioner, you know, why don't we ask the --
part of my motion, ask the county manager to identify the funding
sources?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if I could interject something here.
We don't have any guarantee of any of these funds. These are funds
that have been talked about, and we can't put them in a motion
because they're from agencies that are outside the control of
government -- Collier County government.
We know that we have identified a potential for a $10 million
grant that's from outside sources, maybe $5 million from South
Florida Water Management District, maybe $2 million for air
easements for the Naples Municipal Airport.
MR. MUDD: And Conservation Collier.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
MR. MUDD: And Conservation Collier.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Conservation Collier has been
willing to commit some funds. But I don't know how we put those in
our motion.
Go ahead. Help us out.
Page 114
September 27, 2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think if you make the motion to
make the offer and then direct the county manager to re-engage the
Trust for Public Lands, I think -- I think it gets you over the hump on
where you get the dollars. Because they will -- they will take
whatever pieces they get and whatever they don't get, then they'll try
to sell those outparcels to make up the difference.
And if all those pieces fall into place and the grant shows up,
there's no -- there's no guarantee on this grant. But if the grant shows
up, then they've got those dollars, and if not, then they've got some
commercial property on the periphery of that 166 acres that abuts
Golden Gate Parkway and Goodlette- Frank Road that they can -- they
can leverage.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to finish my -- so I
can get my comfort level. And thank you for helping with the
direction on this, Commissioner Henning.
The only problem is, is that when we make this motion, if it's
open-ended -- and I understand where we're coming from with these
monies that are out there, they're conditional. If we make the motion
and they accept the offer and these other ones dry up, where does the
money come from over $40 million?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what the Trust for Public Lands
will do is sell off parcels.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, can
we include in the motion that our commitment is $40 million and that
we're working with -- and then you can put the language in there about
the land trust?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to include in my
motion, Commissioner -- this will satisfy you -- part of the motion is,
we will bond up to $40 million. That's part of my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I could, let me -- let me try to explain
to you where you're going here. Let's suppose you bond the $40
Page 115
September 27, 2005
million -- and I do appreciate Commissioner Henning's motion on this.
It is constructive.
But let's think down the road. Let's suppose there is not enough
money from sources which we control to get the entire parcel, the
entire Fleischmann parcel, but we do contribute the $40 million that
we can bond. Now, what part of that property do we own for that $40
million and what is the price for that?
Now, the Trust for Public Lands will have paid $67.5 million for
the property. So now they're going to sell off the difference, and what
are we going to wind up with? Is it $40 million we just paid for the
zoo when we probably can get the zoo for 20 to 25?
That's the path you're going down here, and it's a very, very
dangerous path, because you're committing yourself to provide
funding for something you don't own and you have no control over
what part of it is going to be sold off to make up the difference for
Trust for Public Lands. That's why eminent domain is a good idea. It
gives you control. You know exactly how much you're getting and
you know exactly how much you own for whatever amount of money
the court determines is a fair price.
So it is a very, very slippery slope, as far as I am concerned. But
if this board will vote to pay the $67.5 million, which is the asking
price for this property, I will bite my tongue and go home and ram my
head in the wall for a few hours tonight, but I want to preserve this
property, and I will do that, and that's, in my estimation, the only
option you have left us.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Again, in the discussion it's opened
up even more ideas and it leads back to, if we do look at eminent
domain and we say that we don't want to get involved in -- where we
buy property that we later don't control because we have to end up
selling it to payoff the debt because other entities that said they would
come forth said now that if we get involved in this process, then we're
Page 116
September 27,2005
going to pull back our funding.
So do we say, okay, we want just the zoo and some portions of
property? Are we willing to settle just on that portion and work on it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't have to settle for anything.
You can go after whatever you want with respect to eminent domain,
and then you can deal with the remainder by negotiating a price, if
there is such a price.
But the -- you can go after the whole thing or you can go after a
portion of it. In view of the fact that you only have $40 million that
you can tap for making the deposit into the escrow account, you're
likely to go after something less than the entire $67.5 million parcel.
But that doesn't keep you from continuing to negotiate for the
remainder.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, where I'm
concerned about, if we go the path of eminent domain, we may not
have the opportunity to get the funding that's available now for us.
Because as soon as we go down this road, there are some people who
said that they are no longer going to be involved in this process.
So my concern is, do we just go ahead and pay the full price,
we're going to get the support of these groups, and then we've taken
care of the issue, and we've got a Central Park?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Look at a different scenario.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir. I'm open.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's suppose we go after as much as we
can afford for our $40 million bonding amount that has been approved
and the Trust for Public Lands goes after the remainder, which is not
the subject of eminent domain.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't know. Where does that lead
us, County Attorney? Can you give us some guidance here?
MR. WEIGEL: I think so. Mr. Coyle is correct, that all he has
brought forward today was a request to ask staff to bring back
information related to eminent domain so that decisions, if desired,
Page 11 7
September 27,2005
and direction, if desired, could be given at a later time.
He has in capsulized form talked about the fact that the 67 and a
half million for 166 acres has obviously certain ramifications,
pocketbook ramifications with the county, including other sources of
funding beyond the 40 million that's been authorized for a potential
bond.
He's also noted that there is a certain logic that buying less than
the whole would seem to cost less than the whole, and that may leave
some options in regard to funding.
And you have noted, Mr. Halas, that some of the, call it,
voluntary funding that may be available through grant or through
other funding sources mayor may not be available if the county
proceeds with eminent domain, and these would be part of the choices
to be brought back for your determination if you wish to consider
eminent domain at a later point in time or other aspects of negotiation.
Negotiation and the concept of investigating eminent domain are
not diametrically opposed. But additionally, other aspects that would
be taken into account and be part of our report back to you -- and Mr.
Coyle mentioned this very early in his discussion -- is that typically in
eminent domain where a portion of property is taken -- and we do this
all the time -- take portions of property, not entire parcels for other
efforts --infrastructure efforts here, that there may be corresponding
damages and other effects that come into play in a court of law
beyond the value of the pure property that's being taken, obtained
through acquisition by eminent domain.
Additionally, alluded to here is the fact that we could be in court
for a long time. Well, yes and no. There are two avenues of eminent
domain that may be pursued. And again, this would be part of the
report we'd bring back to you, but it's, I think, appropriate to mention
now.
One involves moving forward relatively, comparatively quickly,
and you go to court and have a, what's called a quick-take hearing.
Page 118
September 27, 2005
And if the court determines that it's in the public benefit, not health,
safety, welfare, but public benefit for the acquisition of the property
by the local government to occur, the court will, in fact, make that
determination at an early hearing on that. It's a judge decision.
And subsequent to that, sometimes a long time subsequent to
that, will be when a 12-person jury makes a determination as to what
the appropriate value is, because that's the contest that remains of what
is the appropriate value.
And more than one of you mentioned, I think, that, yes, there are
other costs that come into play with eminent domain. There are
statutory attorney fees and expert fees, things that come into play by
virtue of the wisdom of the legislature which attempt to make it what
they consider a fair playing field in the area of acquisition between a
property owner and local government.
And those things have to be reckoned with, and you do that
almost every week, every board meeting, where you have to take into
account expert witness fees and statutory attorney costs and things of
that nature.
With eminent domain, again, the report we would bring back to
you, would attempt to identify risks, kind of a cost benefit analysis.
With litigation -- we're interested in case law. With litigation one
cannot usually divine, prognosticate, with exactitude what a result will
be.
Think of the recent Kilo decision -- which Mr. Coyle correctly
indicates, is nothing to do with the county's concept here -- but the
recent kilo decision with the Supreme Court of the United States, a 5-4
decision.
What that tells you is that the most esteemed judges, the justices
of the United States Supreme Court, even they look at issues
differently. So it's very hard for counsel and very hard for people that
are concerned representing stewardship of the taxpayers' dollars to
know with exactitude what will happen in a court of law, because even
Page 119
September 27, 2005
the best whose career is required to look at these things for the benefit
of the whole United States Republic differ with these 5-4 decisions on
difficult issues.
I hope I've answered your question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? What do you
think of that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think we're back to
square one. I just want to say, Commissioner Henning, I support his
motion, the idea of $40 million is what the county's got in. I think this
is going to be the catalyst to have the community come forward. I
haven't been convinced that eminent domain is the answer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, would
you restate your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's been too long ago, I can't
remember it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I thought.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think we've got some
public speakers, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. How many do we have?
MS. FILSON: Six.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Are you ready for them?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's bring them up, three minutes.
MS. FILSON: Cary Gaylord. He'll be followed by Dexter
Groose.
MR. GAYLORD: Mr. Chairman and fellow Commissioners, I'm
here on behalf of the Fleischmann Trust, and I've been engaged to
represent them should there be any eminent domain action that the
county undertakes.
I came here to tell you a couple things that you all have already
talked about, that it's an expensive process. It's the worst decision you
can make with regard to taking a -- trying to acquire this property.
Page 120
September 27,2005
My experience has been that I've tried eminent domain cases on
behalf of owners in almost half the counties in Florida over 28 years,
and your attorney is correct, you cannot predict the outcome of these
cases.
Although I agree that the Kilo case doesn't directly bear on this
situation, what the Kilo case should tell you and the aftermath of it, is
that just because you can do this doesn't mean that you should do it.
And you can see the reaction that has occurred nationally to the
decision in Connecticut.
Now, in this particular case, if you choose to exercise the power
of eminent domain, the family's going to fight you, and you're going
to have an argument instead of an effort to work toward a conclusion
here. And I don't think that that's what serves the interest of the
people of Collier County.
Now, somebody made the point about courage, that this isn't
really about courage, and I wholeheartedly agree about that, that --
and what I'd like to do is, besides the points that I came to make today,
I'd like to -- to speak with a voice that turns away wrath here.
You're talking about characterizing people who own this property
that have as much of a stewardship obligation to their family as you all
feel toward the people of Collier County, and you've totally
overlooked that, as far as I can tell.
Now, you've -- there are things that you said and have said
collectively in this meeting today that are inflammatory and there are
things that you've left out of this process that the people here in the
audience haven't heard.
This family engaged people in the county and the Trust for
Public Lands to try to determine scenarios that were reasonable for the
appraisal of this property, and they discussed those, and they were told
by people in the county that those scenarios were reasonable.
If you choose to go forward in the eminent domain process,
you're going to hear about all that in court as an admission against
Page 121
September 27,2005
interest. And you haven't even talked about it today. You may not
even know about it, to the best of my knowledge. But if you go
forward in litigation, you're going to hear about it again.
So what I'm telling you is that there was an effort on the part of
these people to work with you and find a way to appraise this property
and come up with a fair outcome.
So I just want to encourage you -- there are people that would
like to talk to you. If you don't -- if you don't back off from eminent
domain, you're not going to have the ability to work with the Trust for
Public Lands, and that's an important group to act as intermediary
between the Collier County Commission and this family.
Thanks. And I'll be glad to answer your questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Who's working with -- is
the family working with the taxpayers? I haven't seen that, so maybe
you need to point it out to me.
MR. GAYLORD: Well, there was a process, Commissioner
Henning, by which the family trust went through an exercise to
determine, what premises, should be considered in any appraisal. And
my understanding was that they worked with the Trust for Public
Lands, and they also worked with people from the county to come up
with those premises so that all the appraisers -- all the people that were
involved in the process agreed that the premises were reasonable and
that they would be given to the appraisers and the appraisals would be
based upon those premises.
To that extent, they have worked with people from the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's as far as they're going
to work with us?
MR. GAYLORD: Well, I'm not saying it's as far -- I can't speak
for that. All I can do is tell you that there has been an effort up to this
point in time. And today you're here in this room talking about
exercising the power of eminent to take this property away from them
involuntarily. And I think that everything that's been told to you by
Page 122
September 27, 2005
your county attorney is absolutely correct. If you chose that path, the
outcome is probably going to be different than what you expect today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You also told us that if we proceed along
that path, that we will interfere in an ability to resolve this issue.
MR. GAYLORD: There's no question about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, can you tell us what action is
being taken to resolve this issue?
MR. GAYLORD: Well, as of today or as of the point in time
that you included an agenda item to discuss the exercise of the power
of eminent domain, I think all that ceased.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, what was it, so I'll understand
what action was being taken by the people you represent to resolve
this?
MR. GAYLORD: Well, there was an exercise to work with
people to come up with -- people from the Trust for Public Lands.
And, Commissioner, it was the county -- it was Collier County that
appointed the Trust for Public Lands to act as the intermediary in this
case so they were the authority that the family trust was supposed to
work with here, and they have been working with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you tell us what the family trust has
done either through the public lands or any other source to help reach
a solution to this problem?
MR. GAYLORD: What they have done is try to come up with a
fair set of premises upon which this property should be valued, reach
an agreement about what was fair in that regard, and then obtain a fair
and reasonable appraisal to present to the county, and that's what they
did. And then once the county received it, I believe there was then an
effort to undercut that appraisal.
So if you could put yourself, Commissioner, in the shoes of
someone that sought to acquire your property, property that you
owned personally, and handled the process the way that you've
handled it so far, I believe your reaction would probably be the same
Page 123
September 27, 2005
as the Fleischmann family, that you would react the same way that
they have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've seldom seen anybody react that way,
quite frankly, and I've bought a lot of property, okay?
MR. GAYLORD: You've seldom seen anybody react the way
you react?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, the way you have described. The
point is that there were four appraisals, and all of them were pretty
much based upon the same set of assumptions, and they reached
different --
MR. GAYLORD: I don't understand that to be the case.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They reached different conclusions.
And one side has said that there cannot be an appraisal that is more
accurate than mine. I find that to be a rather strange reaction.
MR. GAYLORD: Well, Mr. Commissioner, there are things that
I'm aware of -- and I'm going to choose not to rattle sabers today, but
what you're saying is not exactly true. So -- and that's not the way the
process developed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Maybe you all didn't like us (sic).
MR. GAYLORD: I will choose not to do that today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, I have just a couple of
questions for you. As you know, the citizens were very much
interested in acquiring all this property because we felt that it would
benefit the community as a whole, and I mean by community, I'm not
just talking about the City of Naples. I'm talking about all of Collier
County.
And the citizens decided that they would tax themselves $40
million to acquire this property. We have -- we might have been
wrong in regards to what we thought the value of it was when we put
the referendum on the ballot.
Page 124
September 27,2005
My concern is, sir, is that we have stepped forward and we have
tried to negotiate with you, but you have taken the hard line of not
even addressing what we've put on the table and said, well, if you -- if
you up it a little bit, we'll come down a little bit. There has been
nothing in negotiating of this property whatsoever by your -- you or
your clients, and we're very concerned about that.
And we were hoping that we could -- you were stating earlier that
all we're talking about today is eminent domain. If you recall, sir, one
of the first things that I did after I got permission from the chair -- and
I said, I would like to see if we could up the ante to about $60 million.
Would that move the family into the realm -- the arena of trying to
negotiate with us?
MR. GAYLORD: Commissioner, I'm not going to respond to a
specific offer today. I think that would be inappropriate for me to do
that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm just saying, all I want
you to do is say, we might be getting close to the point in time where
you're willing to come to the bargaining table.
MR. GAYLORD: What I will say, sir, is that your attitude and
your spirit is bound to bear some fruit in this process, I believe, and I
would certainly convey that.
I think that -- you know, to the extent that I've heard respect for
their position communicated today, I would go back and communicate
that to the folks who own this property. And there certainly is a give
and take in this process.
I think that whoever said today that this is an awkward way to
conduct negotiations is exactly right, and that's one of the reasons why
the Trust for Public Lands plays an important role here. But it's not the
only way to do business.
You can work through your county attorney. And so -- it's a very
difficult way to negotiate in the open, as you're having to do today.
It's a tough way to do business, and I can understand the frustration
Page 125
September 27, 2005
that you all expressed today.
It would be tough if the family were in a situation and you had
their -- access to their living room discussions as you were engaged in
negotiations with them. It would be tough on them. But there is a
way to do this, and you do it all the time.
It's not -- you know, you reach a conclusion that your county
attorney can recommend to you. And so you -- every single thing
that's said and done is not subject to the public eye.
But I'll tell you, my own personal opinion is, that whoever said
today that you'd be better off paying their price, I think that was -- that
was a very smart statement, because at the end of the day, at the end
of two years from now or two years from now, if you look back on all
that you'll go through if you choose to condemn it and you look at it
through the lens of hindsight, it will look like it was probably a good
idea to do that today or next week or the week after that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All I'm asking you is if you would
go back to the parties you represent, and if we make a decision today
to up the ante, that at least we get some consideration and we bring
you to the bargaining table so that we can get this taken care of
without having to go through the process of eminent domain.
MR. GAYLORD: Yes, sir. I'll absolutely assure you that I will
do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. GAYLORD: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dexter Groose. He'll be
followed by Ray Carroll.
MR. GROOSE: Commissioner Coyle, Commissioners, my name
is Dexter Groose. I've had the opportunity to spend a couple hours
analyzing the Hanson appraisal. And as you said, Commissioner
Coyle, they're -- all four appraisals are pretty much the same. They're
based on the same assumptions.
I find that the Hanson appraisal is not only flawed, but in my
Page 126
September 27, 2005
opinion seriously flawed. It is interesting but fair and reasonable.
Here's why.
It's based on a two percent monthly appreciation of property
values. Even for Naples, that's a little bit excessive. It means your
property quadruples every six years. I think a one-and-a-half percent
a month is much more accurate.
The density assumptions in it are excessive, 1,000, 1,100 some
units. If the densities are approved at just half those values, the
property drops to about $25 million.
It also compares land that is zoned for agriculture to other lands
that are approved PUDs. If there's ever an apples to oranges
comparison, that is it.
Once you have a PUD, your land quadruples in value, but before
you have that, it's not worth too much. And they cite -- in the Hanson
appraisal, they cite four other developments from Lely to Miromar
Lakes, a number of them. And that's how they come up with their
$55,000 per unit, and that's how they come up with this 60 some
million. They take 1,148 units at 55,000. Basically that's how they got
there.
Furthermore, it does not reflect the current FEMA flood zones.
But the most obvious error in my opinion is that none of the four
appraisals ever mentioned the close proximity to runway 32. You ever
stay at a hotel at the end of Miami International Airport runway? I've
stayed at one that was over a mile away, and, boy, it was noisy.
Noise decibels of -- noise levels above 60 decibels are found to
be annoying, according to the airport. That's when they get their
complaints. The airport has observed 17 different aircraft that -- at
three-eighths of a mile from the end of the runway with noise levels
ranging from the mid-70s to as high as 93 for both prop and jet
aircraft. These are all excessive noise levels.
I don't believe that having a housing development under runway
32 is a high value neighborhood. I don't think it's worth the 67
Page 127
September 27, 2005
million, in my opinion. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker's Ray Carroll. He'll be followed
by Penny Taylor.
MR. CARROLL: Good afternoon. I'm Ray Carroll. I'm a
citizen, I'm a Real Estate Appraiser here in Collier County, and I've
had some -- little bit of involvement with the public in this matter.
Let me just make some observations. I can tell that this is
troubling for you, and I'm very appreciative of the fact that you're
sitting there and I'm not. I appreciate that.
I can tell that you perceive the strength of the public opinion
behind the desire to acquire the property. It's obvious, and I want you
to keep that uppermost in your mind, because that's what I was about
some months ago.
I think you have had good advice from your staff. A significant
part of my appraisal practice is in eminent domain. I think you should
find out what it means, particularly with respect to the timing and
what is likely to happen to value over the interim period before you
could even lock down a date.
It may be something you want to pursue. My personal opinion is
that it's not. But I think you should get the facts.
I perceive that you want to go forward and that you want to
satisfy the public. Again, my personal opinion is that some kind of
partial taking or partial acquisition won't do that, and I think it is
fraught with dangers.
And then I return to my first statement, I appreciate that it's a
struggle. I appreciate that you are obviously interested in staying
engaged, and I strongly urge you to stay engaged. I think you're doing
the right thing.
When it's all said and done, I think this acquisition is very much
like that of a family who isn't investing in a home as an investment,
but as a place to live, a place that gives them quiet enjoyment, makes
Page 128
September 27,2005
their life better, a place they intend to stay for the foreseeable future.
When I see families make those kinds of investments, price is not
the first consideration. It's that quiet enjoyment, it's the good things
that come out of owning, and it is the 20-year horizon.
Over a period of that long, the price you pay today doesn't matter
as much as it does if you're really just talking about a dollar
investment where you want to make money. I think the public sees it
that way. Thanks again. We're all watching.
MS. FILSON: Penny Taylor. She'll be followed by Richard
Grant.
MS. TAYLOR: Good afternoon. Some tough acts to follow
here. They kind of stole some of my words, but not to say thank you
so much for doing what you're doing. This is -- as an elected official,
I can feel your pain. This is so difficult, and it's been so difficult from
the beginning.
To think that 14 months ago this property came on the market.
And, to your credit, you said, we need to buy this, and you put it
before the voters, and the voters, by 73 percent, every precinct in
Collier County voted to buy this property. And then the appraisal that
never came, that never came, that never came, and now this.
So I give you a great deal of credit and certainly admire your
stewardship of the taxpayers' money.
I come before you today on behalf of the Blue Ribbon
Committee. The Blue Ribbon Committee was formed 14 months ago,
and you gave us a mandate. You said, 40 million is here. Where's the
rest coming from?
We have brought to you, the county manager has given those
figures, anywhere from 18- to $28 million. The sources are from the
airport, from Florida Communities Trust, from South Florida Water
Management, from Conservation Collier. Weare dedicated to trying
to get more sources. We haven't stopped working.
But always with Trust for Public Lands involved there was a
Page 129
.,- --~-' ---'~
September 27,2005
plan. Because there was a plan, what if, what if this day would come
where we couldn't make the money match? Understanding that we
didn't even know what the asking price was going to be. We didn't
even know what the appraisal was going to be.
How are you going to handle it? This is how we are going to
handle it. We came with three scenarios, and I believe that -- Marla,
so tell me -- this is it, right, the public/private partnership.
And this is'the scenario we came with. If it turned out that the
money wasn't there, Trust for Public Lands would be authorized by
you to buy the entire parcel, and then you would say, the county has
this much money, Trust for Public Lands sell off the other areas that
will make you whole, and those areas are along Golden Gate Parkway
and along Goodlette- Frank Road, not the zoo area, but certainly the
commercial south of it.
N ow I think we really don't want to do this. We never wanted to
do this. Our ideas were always to preserve the entire parcel,
especially for water management and for recreation, because a
public/private partnership does restrict naturally the public's use of this
property .
Thank you very much. I just wanted to bring this to your
attention.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Richard Grant. He'll be
followed by your final speaker, Andrew Dickman.
MR. GRANT: Commissioners, thank you. My name is Dick
Grant. As several of you know, I practice law here in town, but I'm
here speaking for myself today.
I wear a number of hats. I have been involved, not directly, in
this property to be sure, but I was very actively involved with
Conservation Collier. I was one of the officers of the pack that helped
get it organized. I've been a member of the board of the conservancy
for eight years. I was the chairman for the past two years.
Page 130
September 27, 2005
I had a number of things I was going to say and I'm not going to
say it because it would be redundant. Let me simply echo the support
that others have given you. I would not want to be in your position.
It's a very difficult challenge knowing how much the community as a
whole wants to have this property acquired, but yet feeling the need to
be proper and good public stewards, so I do not envy you.
I thought I heard a little bit of an entree from the attorney here
representing the Fleischmann Trust today. He certainly did not say
that the trust would negotiate, but he certainly indicated that he felt
some of the expressions today were positive and he would convey that
back. Sometimes that means something; sometimes it doesn't.
The other observation that I would make to you is that he noted,
and I have heard this also, and I have no idea whether this is correct or
incorrect, that, perhaps, not all of the appraisals have been based upon
the same base line of entitlements. If that is not the case, I think
everybody owes it to himself and herself to determine if, in fact, they
are based upon the same base line, because if you're not, you're going
to get different numbers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
MR. GRANT: I don't know how to resolve those things without
people in good faith sitting down with each other face to face and
simply talking to each other and asking questions, and I'm sure there
must be a way that that can be done.
So that's all I have say. I believe the entire property should be
acquired. I think that's what the public wants. And thank you again
for all of your hard work and diligence in this. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Andrew Dickman.
MR. DICKMAN: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Andrew Dickman
on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. As you know, the
Conservancy has been involved in this process for a long time, not
only at the beginning when the referendum was coming before the
public, which was voted on by a substantial majority of the voters, but
Page 131
September 27, 2005
also in the planning and acquisition phase.
Weare committed to this proj ect in a deep way based on our
mission to preserve open space through conservation, to deal with
stormwater runoff and the issues of environmental impact to the river
and Gordon River and Naples Bay, and more importantly, to
education, environmental education. That is the reason why we have
been involved in this.
And we would like to, in our sincerest effort, say to you, we
appreciate the involvement that you have had, the difficult questions
that have been before you. We specifically want to thank the chair for
asking a very tough question today.
It must not have been easy for you to come before folks and ask
that question, because it is a very electric question, as you have seen
today; however, all of you have an obligation to explore all facets of
this, and that is the charge that has been given to you by the public, so
we appreciate that.
All facets do have to be explored, but we would ask that you
continue this discussion of eminent domain for 90 days, put it on the
table, perhaps ask your staff, Mr. Attorney, Mr. Manager, individually
about this item, do not take a public action on the eminent domain,
give the landowner -- I believe the attorney had mentioned that in
good faith they are willing to look at negotiating again. Hopefully
they will.
We feel that going forward with an eminent domain action, even
if it is publicly instruct the manager and the attorney to come forward
with a public presentation on this, could electrify the situation.
It seems that it would not hurt to table this item for 90 days, and
individually, perhaps, explore this. And I believe several of you had
expressed that path.
And then finally, I would like to say that the Conservancy is
committed to stay the course on this. Weare very, very interested, as
I said earlier, in a Collier County, Fleischmann, Central Park concept,
Page 132
September 27,2005
if you will, for a lot of reasons.
It is a rare, rare opportunity. I think part of the facets are, you
have to look down the road. This is a very difficult question. I
believe everyone involved has felt your pain in having to deal with
this in a public way. But once again, we would ask you to, perhaps,
put this on the table in terms of the eminent domain and bring the
parties back to the table with your legal counsel and your manager and
try to come at this one last time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Was that our last
speaker?
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
Commissioner Coletta, you had a question or comment?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, comment, a little bit of a
thought.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd like to get a motion here. Either kill
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You have a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- this thing and get it out of here --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, not too quick.
Commissioners Henning, if I may?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Your motion that you have on
the floor, I think, is fairly well directed. Commissioner Coyle
mentioned the fact, you know, it's very difficult to make sausage in
front of an audience, meaning this negotiation, and everyone else
seems to be in agreement. We're at a total loss. I mean, here we're
going back and forth. We have the -- not our audience, but also the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What can I do for you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what you can do,
Commissioner Henning, is why don't we consider turning this right
Page 133
September 27, 2005
over to the Trust for Public Lands, our $40 million, some stipulations
of what we expect them to do, they know where the other funds are,
they do the negotiations and report back to us where they are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whatever I could do to make
you happy.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would make me happy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? Then I'm going to
call this question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, just so
that it doesn't look like we're penny pinchers, maybe you could just
put it to 60 million, and we'd call that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm a penny pincher. I'm going
to keep my motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm a squeaky, tight penny
pincher.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This will require a--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ask my wife.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- supermajority vote. So we'll have to
have four out of the five commissioners who support this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are we for turning it over to the
Trust then, to be able to let them do the negotiations from here on out?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With our amount of 59,913 --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, with our amount of
40,000 (sic), and the idea being is that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Million.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- they go out and get the rest of
it. That's what we committed to bond and all that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The motion on the floor is to offer
them 59,913,333.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it's also to bond $40 million
Page 134
September 27,2005
from the county coffers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. If you're going to turn it over to the
Trust for Public Lands, they're going to decide what the price is, not
us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they're going to come back
to us --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And want to make up the difference.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- at the end of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So your motion still stands?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We ought to pull that motion and
start over again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, just like Commissioner
Coyle said, and I agreed to accommodate Commissioner Coletta,
everything that he wanted in there, is we're going to offer what you
said, Commissioner Fiala. We're saying that we're going to bond up to
$40 million and we're going to let the Public Lands for Trust (sic)
negotiate the deal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So that's the motion and
that's my second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Is that how you
understand it, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm not sure it was.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My understanding it was the $59
million.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You're going to tell the public--
Trust for Public Lands that that's all they can offer?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We might be able to get it for
less.
Page 135
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right. Dream on. I don't know that we
can do that.
David? Very quickly. We need to get this thing over with.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'll speak fast.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Yes or no would be good.
MR. WEIGEL: The only thing you have to keep in mind at this
point is, are you a qualified buyer, and that's what Trust for Public
Lands needs to know. If they negotiate -- if they negotiate a price,
they need to know that the buyer can come up with the money.
And if 40 million and the rest has to be cobbled together,
typically in a buy/sell arrangement, there's a contract that allows some
time for you to cobble things together, just as there is in a residential
contract that comes up. So if they have that understanding, if they put
together a price and come back to you to assure that you're a qualified
buyer, then I think you'll be okay, or you can just make the offer of the
59 plus plus million, and that's the offer that's in the area for the
Fleischmanns to consider. It's either/or, it sounds to me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess we've got to get something
clarified here. Do we keep the motion as it is, or do we pull the
motion and re -- and refabricate the motion?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I thought there was a question as to
whether the Trust for Public Lands would be involved or not. The
initial motion did not include them, but there was discussion about
utilizing them, so I was trying to clear that up for you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And we've got the price tag
of 59 million and nine hundred, or whatever it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nine hundred thirteen, three, three,
three.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So do we put that on the table, or
we pull that off the table and start over at the 40 million bonded and
then work up from there with the funds that are allocated?
Page 136
September 27, 2005
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, wait a minute. We've got -- the
motion is what it is, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we either have to vote on that motion
or it has to be withdrawn, okay.
Commissioner Henning, you want us to vote on that motion of
59.9? We can't do both, that is we can't--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We can't do both, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can't do -- make an offer of 59-nine
and then tell the Trust for Public Lands that they're involved in the
negotiations process.
MR. MUDD: You have to say -- tell the Trust for Public Lands
to make an offer of 59,913,333, and they will-- and they will go do
that for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can do that?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then Commissioner Henning's
motion is perfectly acceptable.
Okay. Now as I understand it, he is suggesting that we instruct
the Trust for Public Lands to make an offer 59,913,333 and see where
it goes, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay? And that's Commissioner
Fiala's second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second, uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 137
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I think it passed unanimously. Is
anyone opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I think we're going to get taken to
the cleaners, folks.
Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. We're going to take a break.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a break; 10 minutes.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, will you please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Where do
we go from here?
Item #7 A
ADA-2005-AR-7658, JOSEPH C. FULLER, P.A., REPRESENTING
JOHN AND TERI PURVIS AND OTHER AFFECTED PROPERTY
OWNERS REQUESTING AN APPEAL TO OFFICIAL
INTERPRETATION INTP-2005-AR-7442 RELATED TO AN
OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION REGARDING THE DEFINITION
AND OPERATIVE PROVISIONS OF CERTAIN LDC TERMS
PERTAINING TO "BOAT CANOPIES" - OFFICIAL
INTERPRETATION UPHELD - APPROVED; STAFF TO BRING
BACK DIRECTION FOR AL TERNA TIVES AND AESTHETICS
RELATING TO BOAT CANOPIES - CONSENSUS
Page 138
September 27,2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to item 7A, and this
is a paragraph on Board of Zoning Appeals. This item was continued
from the September 13, 2005, BCC meeting.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's ADA-2005-AR-7658. Joseph C. Fuller, practicing attorney,
representing John and T eri Purvis, and other affected property owners,
requesting an appeal to the official interpretation INTP-2005-AR-7442
relating to an internal official interpretation regarding the definition
and operative provisions of certain LDC terms pertaining to boat
canopIes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We need to have everyone who is
going to offer testimony in this hearing to please stand and to be
sworn In.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Now I'd like to have ex parte disclosures by members of the
commISSIon.
Commissioner Halas, any ex parte disclosure?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do. I have meetings,
correspondence, and e-mails, and I've also talked to staff on this
particular issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have talked to staff and had
e-mails.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have no disclosure for this item at
all.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had e-mails, I've spoken with
staff. And when we talked about the subj ect previously, I went out to
take a look at the area there where these boat canopies were used.
Page 139
September 27,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to the county attorney
on this issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. Let's get started.
MS. MURRAY: For the record, I'm Susan Murray. I'm the
Zoning Director. And I believe David Weigel wanted to start out
giving an intro.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's hear it, David.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, you have had provided to you, as
well as the representatives on behalf of the appellants, the appealing
parties, their counsel, what we call an overview of the procedure that's
here. You should have that document in front of you, and I'm just
going to briefly walk through it.
And that is that there will be a presentation. You'll note that
there'll be a brief overview or explanation of the process generally,
and this is where an interpretation has been requested or provided by
staff to an applicant who has requested interpretation. And an appeal
has come before you.
You are familiar with this process, having been through it at least
on one occasion or more before, a couple occasions before in the
recent years. And your role here is to review -- review and listen to
the testimony, starting with the interpretation that's been provided by
Ms. Murray and any other facts and information that she has.
You have an executive summary and backup documentation is
there, which is part of your review process. And additionally, you
will have the opportunity to ask questions during this procedure.
The board's role here is to either agree with or not agree with the
interpretation that Ms. Murray has created, responded to. And you
can, in fact, either approve it exactly, you can disapprove it, and you
can, in fact, modify and add your own interpretive comments as a
collective board as to what you think the land development code issue
and application is.
Page 140
September 27,2005
Let's see. In regard to outcome for the -- pursuant to land
development code, again, as I just stated, you can adopt the director's
interpretation, rej ect it, or, in fact, modify.
The legal basis of the adoption of the director's interpretation or
rejection of the director's interpretation, there should be a basis, based
on, one, your understanding of the law in the application to the facts at
hand -- Patrick, if you need to jump in.
Typically we look for a determination of the board to be based
upon the competent and substantive facts and testimony that's before
the board as they make an interpretation here.
Patrick, would you explain the role of the public testimony that
may come into play here?
MR. WHITE: Certainly. Before we get to that -- Assistant
County Attorney Patrick White.
There's a limitation to some degree on the way in which the
board can modify or reject the interpretation, and that's found in the
LDC. And I'd just like to put it on the record that you're only
authorized to modify or rej ect the interpretation if the board finds that
the determination is not supported by competent substantial evidence,
as Mr. Weigel's indicated, or that the interpretation is contrary to the
growth management plan, future land use map, the code, meaning the
land development code, or the official zoning atlas building code,
whichever's applicable.
In this instance the only one I think that's arguable applicable is
the land development code, as none of the other provisions that are
cited here are ones that are the subject of the interpretation.
Turning to the explanation of the role of the public testimony, it
begs the question of all the testimony you'll hear today and your
discretion as to the weight you give to that testimony.
Many of the staff people that you hear speak today are arguably
testifying as experts on the matters that they will be speaking to you
about, and that is distinguished from the notion that general members
Page 141
September 27,2005
of the public speak to you as what are called lay witnesses. And it is
to your determination the amount of weight that you give to those
types of testimony.
Arguably the standard here is essentially a balancing test of more
evidence than not to support the point of view that you think is the one
that is prevailing in the appeal process.
Other than that, there may be some time limitations the chair may
choose to put on the speaking by members of the public, and those are
something I'd encourage you to discuss and decide amongst yourself
after we've gone through this initial overview.
And if you'd like me to wrap up with the last item, it is -- the
determination today, because of the scope of this official
interpretation, does not pertain to any type of a use provision per se,
that a simple majority, a quorum, the five members present today, will
be all that's required for a motion to hold. In other words, a three-vote
majority will carry any motion.
And I think, unless there are any questions, that ought to wrap it
up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this un -- presently is it under
any litigation that we have to be concerned about?
MR. WHITE: There's a suit that's been filed by a group of folks
who, I think, may be some overlap in some of the same folks who are
listed on the petition that was the subject of the appeal for the
interpretation.
But I believe that you're here acting in your quasijudicial
capacity with respect to the issues that Ms. Murray was asked to opine
about based upon the code enforcement director's questions, and they
are fairly narrow.
Now, what the scope of the litigation is, in terms of the remedies
that are sought, the arguments that are raised, is probably much
broader than the simple ideas that are, I think, before you for
Page 142
September 27,2005
consideration today.
There is, of course, again, some factual overlap, some legal
overlap, but many of the things that you may hear from the appellant's
attorneys today are arguably -- we'll have to wait to hear -- things that
you really do not have any ability in -- under the eyes of the law, to
make a determination about.
F or example, if they were to raise an argument about
constitutionality of the provisions that we're talking about, that
certainly isn't within the scope of this body to render an opinion about,
so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying is we have a
very narrow path to follow here; is that correct?
MR. WHITE: Hopefully, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did he say we're in litigation right
now?
MR. WHITE: There's been a suit filed, yes. A complaint's been
filed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're ready to go?
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thanks, Susan.
MS. MURRAY: Good afternoon. For the record, Susan Murray.
I'm the Zoning Director.
I'm going to give a brief overview of the request, which was --
official interpretation request, which was filed by Michelle Arnold,
I'm going to give you a brief overview of the response provided by
me, my official opinion, and then I'm going to walk through sections
of the appeal that was filed by Mr. Joseph Fuller and Terry Lenick,
and I will have some items to put on the visualizer as well.
Michelle Arnold filed -- and Michelle Arnold, as you know, is
the Director of the Code Enforcement Department. She filed for an
internal interpretation, which is basically defined as an official
Page 143
September 27,2005
interpretation between departments, on December 3, 2004, and that is
located on page 10 and 11 of 88 of your agenda.
I responded as the zoning director to Michelle Arnold on April 8,
2005, and a summary of that response is found in your executive
summary.
Part of the official interpretation request from Michelle Arnold
noted that the Code Enforcement Department is investigating the
existence of canopy fixtures erected over boat docks and lifts. She
noted in her request for official interpretation that the building official
has confirmed that these fixtures are structures under his interpretation
of the Florida Building Code.
And Ms. Arnold asked me, as the Zoning Director, that I confirm
this opinion with my interpretation as provided -- or as allowed by the
Land Development Code as the Zoning Director.
She asked that I confirm the building director's opinion of the
definition of the term structure under the land development code, and
that question was related to the picture that you see on your visualizer.
And Michelle then asked if these fixtures are, in fact, structures,
and the fixtures she was referring to was the canopy atop the -- or
affixed to the pilings over the boat dock.
And she asked that, if these fixtures are, in fact, structures, in my
opinion, that how such structures may be authorized as a permissible
use, or not, by the Land Development Code. And, again, she attached
that photograph. That photograph depicts a typical structure as part of
this request.
And I'm going to summarize just briefly my response. The basis
of my response was grounded in LDC section 1.08.02 which defines
the structure as follows: Anything constructed or erected which
requires a fixed location on the ground or in the ground or attached to
something having a fixed location on or in the ground, including
buildings, towers, smoke stacks, utility poles, and overhead
transmission lines.
Page 144
September 27, 2005
The boat dock structure and attached canopy fixture requires a
fixed location on or in the ground in order to provide permanent and
fixed storage and support to the boat, or thereto.
The canopy or roof portion of the structure is attach to and
supported by the dock facility. Based on the fact that the canopy meets
the elements of the defined term, structure, it is my opinion that the
canopy fixture depicted in the attached photograph you provided
should be considered a structure under the LDC. That was the answer
to one of two questions she asked.
And I went on to say that further research has revealed that the
term structure and building are further utilized in the LDC definition
for a boathouse, which is defined as any building or structure used for
the storage of boats, watercraft or equipment that is accessory to boats
or watercraft. And I gave a basis for that opinion as well.
The second part of my response had to do with respect to her
second question which asked, if I determined that the photograph she
showed was a structure, or there was a structure in the photograph,
how would that be permissible under the land development code.
And my opinion was that in order to lawfully be able to obtain a
building permit to construct a boathouse, LDC section 5.03.06
requires that such boathouses, including any roof structure built on a
dock, must first be reviewed and approved by the planning
commission under the procedures and applicable criteria described
therein. And I noted that in particular in LDC subsections 5.03.06(E),
(F), (G), (H), and (1).
Also noted that subsection F of the land development code
provides specific development standards as additional criteria that
apply solely to boathouses. And these additional criteria specifically
include setback requirements, regulations regarding the structure's
location, a maximum protrusion into the waterway, a maximum
height, the maximum number of boathouses per site, and aesthetic
regulations.
Page 145
September 27,2005
The aesthetic regulations include the requirement that all
boathouses and covered structures shall be completely open on all four
sides and that the roofing material and roof color shall be same as
materials and colors used in the principal structure or may be of a
palm frond or chickee style.
Thus, as described by the land development code, portions of the
applicable criteria and all of the additional criteria must be met in
order for the planning commission to approve the request for the
boathouse. And then I went on to summarize that as well.
On May 17th -- okay. And that interpretation was rendered, and
it is also advertised and noticed as required by our Land Development
Code.
On May 17,2005, Mr. Joseph Fuller and Terrance Lenick filed
for an appeal to this official interpretation.
And what I'd like to do now is just give you a little bit of a
background of their appeal. It is contained in your packet of
information there. But I would like to provide a response, and I did in
summary as well in your executive summary, but I'd like to go over
that just briefly.
Based on arguments raised in the appellant's appeal request, the
county expects to hear their attorneys try to convince you that the
appeal should be granted because the definitions and provisions of
ordinance number 04-41, as amended, are new and should not be
applied to their previously existing structures.
If you recall, ordinance number 04-41 was the ordinance that
adopted last year's reorganization of the land development code. As
this board will recall, on numerous occasions staff and the county
attorney's office have advised you that the new provisions are simply a
recodification of the old provisions of the code.
Simply stated, the county's land development regulations or rules
have remained in full force and effect with no substantive changes.
Renumbering or relocating text does not make it new.
Page 146
September 27, 2005
And with respect to the existing regulations pertaining to the
approval of the boathouses use, including the aesthetic provisions
pertaining to the roofing material and roof color, these were adopted
on June 4, 1997, and are presently in force. Those rules require
approval of a boathouse by the Collier County Planning Commission
through a duly-noticed public hearing process.
Prior to that time, that being June 4, 1997, a boathouse was
required to be approved through the conditional use process. Final
approval of which was granted by the BZA through a duly-noticed
public hearing process.
The appellant then argues that many of the appellant's -- and the
appellant's representative also represents many different appellants,
and that list is provided in your executive summary packet. That
many of these appellants were informed when their canopies were first
installed that a permit was not required because the, quote, canopy
was not a permanent structure.
And I would submit to you that the appellant's representative did
not produce any evidence of that statement in the form of a copy of
any prior official interpretation and that this is the only official
interpretation of this provision of the LDC on record and that no other
prior application of the LDR are binding or official.
The appellant's representative will try to convince you that the
interpretation is rendered in a vacuum without any history related to
the subject photograph. Furthermore, he will argue that no
opportunity was given to the owner of the subj ect structure in the
depicted photograph to develop additional facts for consideration
before the interpretation was rendered, and that without the factual
history pertaining to the canopy depicted in the photograph, the
interpretation was rendered without any competent substantial
evidence to support it.
And I would argue, Commissioners, that this is irrelevant. This
process is not an independent determination of a notice or a finding of
Page 147
September 27,2005
violation, or not, to any specific site or circumstance.
In order to answer the questions asked in the interpretation, it is
necessary to consider a broad set of assumed facts. This is not, again,
a process of finding of violation for a particular site or a specific
circumstance. This is an interpretation of a presumed set of facts
applied to the regulations which will have county-wide applicability.
The appellant then argues that the definition of a boathouse is
overly broad and utilizes the words, quote, any building or structure to
describe a boathouse, and is so broad it allows inclusion of the
structures, such as docks and boat lifts, to be included within the
definition of a boathouse.
To me it was an interesting argument, because it's contradictory
to the argument the appellant's representative used earlier. If you
recall, based on arguments raised in the appellant's appeal request, the
county expects to hear their attorneys try to convince you that the
appeal should be granted because the definitions and provisions of
ordinance number 04-41, as amended, are new and should not be
applied to their previously existing structures.
However, the argument used in this provision of the appeal is
actually based on what the appellant defines as the new definition of
boathouse.
And I have two definitions -- make sure I have them here. This
first one is -- let me get it so you can read it -- is actually the -- and I'm
going to use old and new just in terms of describing the time. Old as
describing the time prior to recodification, and new describing the
time after recodification. This is the old definition of boathouse. And
then this is the new, and the new is actually the basis upon which he
makes his argument.
So it's -- I don't know. It's kind of a two-faced argument. In one
instance you're perceiving the new rules as unjustly applied because of
their effective date, and in the other instance you're insisting that the
application of the new rule, although legitimate, is problematic
Page 148
September 27,2005
because it's perceived as being vague and overly broad.
So I'm not -- I'm not really sure where that's going. But--
furthermore, I mean, both the previous version and the new version of
the land development code have distinct definitions of boathouse,
dock facility, dock, and the previous version also defines canopy.
All of these definitions clearly distinguish between the different
types of facilities, structures, and uses, I guess, really is my point.
It appears as if the appellant's representative will attempt to
convince the board that a code provision which deals with canopy,
tents, and shades, which was previously located in section 2.6.2.4 of
the LDC, more accurately applies to the rules governing boathouses.
The appellant attempts to define a boat as a vehicle under the
common term of vehicle as defined in Webster's, and further bolsters
his opinion by the fact that boats are considered vehicles for the
purpose of registrations in the State of Florida.
It's absurd to think that just because a vessel is required to be
registered by the state, that they should be treated equally for
regulatory purposes. I mean, is a car typically operated from a dock
or boat lift? Is a boat typically operated from a garage?
In fact, the LDC clearly distinguishes between a multitude of
vehicle types required to be registered by the state and attaches
separate and distinct requirements concerning the storage, operation,
and location of several different types of vehicles.
Specifically, the code has separate and distinct rules governing
recreational vehicles, commercial vehicles, passenger vehicles, and
boats and accessory structures associated therewith.
Lastly, Commissioners, it appears the appellant will try to
convince you that the director's interpretation attempts to give a broad
definition to the term boathouse in order to include it within its
definition of a boat canopy so as to ban their use. Furthermore, he
argues that there is no plainly stated ban on the use of canopies.
Commissioner, this -- Commissioners, this may be a boathouse
Page 149
September 27, 2005
canopy or a roof consisting of a canopy, but roofed structures are not
allowed on structures over water, a/kla a boathouse, unless they obtain
use approval by the planning commission consistent with the
boathouse approval criteria contained in 5.03.06 of the Collier County
Land Development Code.
I didn't make myself an extra copy, but I want to be able to read
this into the record because it's important. This talks about, any
covered structure erected on a private boat dock shall be considered an
accessory use and shall also be required to be approved through the
procedures and criteria of subsections 5.03.06(G) and 5.03.06(F) of
this LDC, and that is the boat -- or dock facility section of the land
development code.
This includes not only boathouses but, for example, chickee huts
where somebody doesn't necessarily park their boat underneath of it,
but they have, you know, kind of a party platform with a chickee hut
for shelter for human beings. So both of those type of structures, both
boathouse -- any covered structure on a dock, be it a boathouse,
chickee, what have you, is required to be approved by the planning
commISSIon.
Commissioners, in closing, there are simply two issues that can
be appealed here as a result of the official interpretation, and the issues
are whether the interpretation is rendered by the director regarding the
definition of a structure as it relates to a canopy attached to a dock
erected over a boat and boat lift dock facility as consistent with the
land development code, and did the director correctly opine on how
such structures are to be properly authorized as a permissible use, or
not, by the land development code.
The director's opinion was clearly summarized in your executive
summary, first, that the boathouse as depicted in the subj ect
photograph is considered a structure by the definition of the land
development code, and, second, that approval of a boathouse requires
review and approval by the planning commission, which is predicated
Page 150
September 27,2005
on a structure meeting the minimum development requirements as
outlined in LDC section 5.03.06.
And I respectfully ask that you uphold the director's official
interpretation in this case. And that concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Susan.
Any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we have the appellant.
Who's the appellant's representative?
MR. LENICK: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good afternoon.
MR. LENICK: My name is Terry Lenick. I represent the
appellants in this case.
MR. MUDD: Sir, if you come on over to this microphone,
you've got lots of room to put all that stuff down, if you need it.
MR. LENICK: That's fine. I'm fine here. I've got my assistant
over here, if that's okay.
I've some -- I have an outline I'd like to simply give to you help
you follow the argument. May I approach?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. You can just hand them to me, and
I'll pass them down to the others.
MR. LENICK: Thank you. For the record, my name is Terry
Lenick, I represent the appellants in this particular matter. I thought
the best way to do this, which is -- this procedure is a procedure -- I've
been doing this sort of thing up in -- primarily up in Lee County for
nearly 25 years, and I've never seen a procedure that's like this one
where it's not an interpretation where the property owners' request, it's
some broad interpretation, and apparently if we didn't make an appeal
of this, it would somehow be used against us.
Let me cover what -- exactly what we've got here. The facts are
that we have a canvas cover over a boat dock, which like a canopy,
tent, and shades is, in this instance, attached to the boat dock by cotter
Page 151
September 27, 2005
pins, which can be easily removed. It's, likewise, a canopy covering
and it can be easily removed. I have an example of that on land.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. LENICK: What I've handed to you is a picture of a canopy
cover on land which is covered by your code; in other words, it covers
a vehicle, a recreational vehicle, which, of course, is a boat, and it is
over land and is permitted by your code. I'll get into that in a second.
The overview of the argument is, I'm going to cover several
things, one is the zoning code itself, the interpretation provisions of
your zoning code, procedural problems you have, they will be on the
second page, and the third page we'll get into the substantive
arguments of what's occurring.
First of all, if you look at the zoning code itself in section 2.0.1,
the purpose of the code is to -- the intent and purpose of the chapter is
to establish and adopt zoning districts to govern the use of land and
water in the unincorporated areas of Collier County. It defines a dock
as any structure constructed in or over a waterway for the primary
purpose of mooring a boat or other watercraft. A dock facility
including walkways, piers, pilings associated with a dock.
Note, that the dock facilities do not include boathouses, but
somewhere it's implied that it's somehow a dock facility when you put
up the boathouse. That would also mean other things can be dock
facilities and be involved.
The interpretation of your zoning code -- and this is what's very
unusual about your code. Section 2.0. -- 2.04.01, rules of
interpretation, state that in any zoning district where the list of
permitted and conditional uses contains the phrase, any use which is
comparable in nature with a foregoing use and consistent with the
permitted uses and purpose and intent of the -- intent statement of the
district or any similar language, which provides for use which is not
clearly defined and described in the list of permitted and conditional
uses, which apprise the discretion of the county manager or designee
Page 152
September 27,2005
as to whether or not it is permitted in the district, then the
determination of whether or not the use is permitted in that district
shall be made through the process outlined in section 1.06.00.
If you go to 1.06.00, that's the only provision in your code that
covers the standards by which an administrator makes a decision on
interpretation. And if you look at 1.06.00, that covers district
boundaries, how to make a determination of that.
I was surprised, but there is nowhere in your code where you set
down standards for your administrator to make a decision with regard
to interpreting this -- a particular use in this instance, let alone a use
applied to a particular piece of land.
Consequently, since they can only administrate your code in
accordance with the standards you give them, if you don't give them
any standards, then they are proceeding under an arbitrary and
capricious manner by law.
Second point under interpretation of zoning laws, there's the
common law principle. Zoning laws are in derogation of private rights
and are to be strictly construed against the drafter. In other words, if
it's six of one, half dozen of another, in my opinion, you have to
strictly construe it against the drafter. And if it's going to go against
the drafter, it's out. And it's a strict construction. Similar to a criminal
case.
It is not something that's a liberal construction. It is a strict
construction because it's in derogation of the common law private
property rights. And every one of you know, I know, ran on private
property rights.
Most importantly in your zoning code, there are no standards for
administrator -- and I think I covered this before -- to apply when
making an interpretation about the particular use. There are standards
regarding the applicability of the zoning district, but that is all. An
administrator cannot make a carte blanche -- cannot have carte
blanche power to make an interpretation. That is what you have here.
Page 153
September 27, 2005
Now, covering that, you've got three procedural problems with
this case. There has never been a procedure that I am aware other than
this one here. Normally how you have this thing in front of you, or in
front of a Board of Adjustments and Appeal, is where somebody goes
in for a permit, it's denied, there's an interpretation, then you go in
front of a Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and then I would have,
like I said, if I represent the private property owner, the burden to
prove the case.
The county would have to come back and disprove it. It would
be that way. That would be your quasijudicial hearing.
This is a procedure. We -- by the way, we tried that. We applied
for an interpretation twice, and twice were not provided this. I even,
at the last couple of months, had my clients go down and try to apply
for a permit for this for a canopy cover, and they were refused even to
have the application taken in to get it into that mode.
What has happened over the past couple of years is the county's
decided -- or I should say, the administrative staff has decided that
they're going to have this procedure. And this procedure is, we're
going to make some interpretation without any particular factual basis,
we're going to advertise it, and then if anybody appeals, pays a
thousand dollars to appeal, then we'll hear it, but we're going to limit
the county commission's decision on it to only substantial competent
evidence. Where's my quasijudicial hearing? It isn't here, because
your standard of review is limited, supposedly, by the ordinance.
There are four reasons why this is a denial of due process.
There's no standard for review in your code. Your administrator's
given carte blanche authority to make a decision. There is truly no
quasijudicial hearing regarding a set of facts as applies to the
interpretation.
As your own administrator told you, this is a broad thing. This is
-- we're going to apply it broadly. There's no specific facts. There's
no case. It's almost like an advisory opinion in the court level, which
Page 154
September 27, 2005
the courts will not do.
In this case it is being -- in this case this procedure is being used
to avoid a decision before -- before a true quasijudicial hearing,
number one, and in this case, as you will soon see in the next page, it's
avoiding a decision, which is a political decision, to be made by the
elector, by the -- the elected officials, and I'll show you why.
MR. WEIGEL: At this point I'm going to interject, and that is,
there's a lot of discussion going on in the record by Mr. Lenick, and
we've let him talk and make those points. But as we indicated
initially, this is an interpreted -- this is an appeal of an interpretation,
and the questions of constitutionality and due process outside of the --
your review of the interpretation are really irrelevant to your
decision-making today.
MR. LENICK: What I'm trying to show you is with -- the
problems you have with that procedure, and I have a solution at the
end of this whole thing, so this is not a -- and the reason for the
lawsuit that was filed by Mr. Fuller in this case.
The next page it gets to the substance of the issue. And
remember you have a strict construction issue. What I've done is I've
taken two provisions of your code. One's called a canopy, tent, and
shades, and the other one's called a boathouse.
Now, this issue of what is -- what is a canopy, tent, or shade has
been litigated by Cape Coral. Cape Coral was forced to go out and
have a county -- have their city council meet and come up with a
definition, and they did, and they properly resolved the thing.
It has also been approached by Marco Island. Marco Island, who
you -- if you recall, when they became a city, they had the county
commission's codes, and they had to make changes to it. And the one
thing they made the change to was they defined a canopy, tent, and
shade -- and I've got the documents in here. I'll get into that.
But let me show you what your code says currently. The first
column says, canopy, tents, and shades. The canopy, tents, and shades
Page 155
September 27, 2005
shall be permitted in all areas zoned for residential and estate use
subject to the following standards.
Remember the provision I said that -- way at the beginning in the
first paragraph of your code that says it covers both land and water? I
would argue that you can have a canopy, tent, or shade over land or
water because it's covered by land or water, your zoning code.
The second thing is, if you continue to read on these canopy,
tents, and shades, it says, of course, that you have to have a limitation
of 300 square feet, and most importantly, look at paragraph 9, the use
of these structures shall be for the storage or parking of recreational
vehicles, vehicles authorized in residential areas, or as a sunshade for
outdoor recreating. At no time shall these structures be used for any
type of storage.
This is being used for the purpose of putting vehicles, boats. And
this provision has been used for land. You basically put the poles up
and you've got to get a permit for it, et cetera.
Now remember, I asked my clients to go down. They first went
down several years ago to try to get permits for this, was told they
didn't need it, and now even as of a couple months ago, we went down
to try to get permits, and they keep saying, we won't even accept your
applications because you're a boathouse.
Now, look at boathouse. Boathouse, if you look in the right-hand
side, is defined as a building or structure used for storage of boats,
watercraft or equipment that is accessory to boats or watercraft.
They then call it a dock facility . You remember me going back
to the original definition of dock facility? It did not include the term
boathouse. So you have to imply that it includes boathouse.
Now, if it includes boathouse, it includes other things. Go down
to paragraph 7, F7. The boathouse or covered structures shall be
located at an -- to minimize the impact; in other words, they do
recognize covered structures.
The long and the short of this whole argument is very simple.
Page 156
September 27, 2005
You don't have a definition of something like a canopy, tent, or shade.
And here's what happened in other jurisdictions when this issue came
up.
First Cape Coral wrestled with the issue. They didn't have -- they
did not have a definition. So they wrote to you guys. They said, hey,
help us. Did they come back -- this was about 1999. Came back, said,
help us, what do you have? Because they wrote to all the different
jurisdictions. And this is the reply.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, do we need some
guidance on this?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we are allowing this to be presented to you
physically. I would note on the record though that this is beyond the
scope of that which he has provided prior to the -- to this presentation
today. Our rules of what must be -- and what is allowable before you
to review requires a pre submittal of this matter.
I would suggest that what he is telling you on the record right
now is anecdotal in regard to other jurisdictions. And, again, your
scope is to -- and review processes is to review the interpretation as
defined as to whether it has competent and substantial evidence
behind it.
And from that standpoint, Mr. Lenick is advised as well that he's
been given significant latitude at this point to bring in issues and
statements that aren't germane to the appeal, and the chair is at a point
where they can limit the addition of this at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think he's getting close to the end
of his presentation.
MR. LENICK: Right. I'm on the last page. You look -- I want to
show you how the other jurisdiction handled it and what happened.
How others have interpreted. What happened is Cape Coral
wrote over here and says, what -- how do you guys handle it? Instead
of sending them your code and saying, well, we don't have to -- all
boathouses are canopies, what Susan Murr (sic), the very person who
Page 157
September 27, 2005
is coming against us on this particular matter, comes back and sends
them a draft of the Marco Island ordinance that was considering it as it
should be, a political issue.
And if you look in that ordinance, it covered the boathouse, and it
covered -- it covered the issue regarding docks.
Now, what ultimately happened regarding canopies -- and what
ultimately happened is the final code -- and I'm going to hand you the
Marco Island ordinance -- specifically defined boat covers and
boathouse and made a distinction.
MR. WEIGEL: Again, I would note an objection to the record of
the admission of this -- of this material or testimony relating to another
jurisdiction's material.
MR. LENICK: The purpose of showing you Marco Island's
ordinance -- and if you look on the first page they cover boat covers
and boathouses -- is that they make that distinction between the
canopy cover situation and the boathouse.
What happened in Cape Coral was, they didn't handle it like
Marco Island. They stubbornly persist that we don't have to have it
before the electorate, we don't have to have a decision and define it.
Your code doesn't define it.
So they went to court, Mr. Fuller and his people went to court on
the matter, and the judge says, you've got to define it. The result of
which is -- and I'll show you the ordinance that was ultimately adopted
by Cape Coral.
MR. WEIGEL: And, again, I would repeat the objection on the
record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to have to bring this
to a close.
MR. LENICK: I will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What Cape Coral and Marco are doing,
as far as I'm concerned, is irrelevant to this case.
MR. LENICK: What I'm trying to do is show you that there is a
Page 158
September 27,2005
vagueness to this definition. There is no definition and how it should
be handled. When you have a problem with defining something, that
it should say the county administrator and the county people are
having a problem defining something -- there is no definition of this.
It doesn't fall within boathouse. Boathouse or covered structures are
two different words and used in the same sentence. They have to be
different.
In that situation when you apply strict construction to the
language, a judge will say, you don't have a definition for canopy, and
therefore, you don't cover it.
Simple solution to this -- and this is where I get down to the
equities. One, the people in the past have gone down and tried to
comply. They were told by the county officials -- and I think Mr.
Purvis can testify to that, and I'd like to get that on the record, too --
that they've gone down, and they were told they don't have to get
permits, and as a result, people started putting up canopies.
Today, even as of a couple months ago, I said, go down and pull
a permit but not for a boathouse, just for a covered structure of some
sort. They wouldn't even accept the application.
We couldn't -- then Mr. Fuller tried twice for an interpretation.
Couldn't get in front of them. So then he went through this process.
Here's what my suggested solution is, and it's a practical solution,
and that is to approach the issue as one where the definition must be
addressed and have public hearings on the issue with draft ordinances
like Marco Island did and ultimately Cape Coral did.
In the meantime, don't punish those who, at best, would have
complied with the original -- at best they could comply with an
ambiguous law. The law should be prospective in nature. And if a
canopy exists prior to the hearings, prior to you making a decision,
then the ordinance drafted should be prospective in nature and let the
people who have, in good faith, gone forward. The county is not
without -- without sin in this particular matter.
Page 159
September 27, 2005
Now, we're entitled, I believe, to somebody who is unbiased in
this situation. And we have letters going back to 2002 after the Cape
Coral situation by Ms. Murr ( sic) saying, absolutely no, they were
absolutely against it. I mean, you have a -- we have a biased situation.
But the simple solution is this. This is a political decision. This
commission may not want these canvas covers or they may want the
canvas covers, I don't know. But the point is, it's a political issue, and
if you let the people who have it up there now keep it up, and then you
say, okay, from this point in time on, we'll employ State verse
Clearwater, and if you don't have it up now or you can't prove it, then
the red flag has gone up, and I'm sure you've been told about the red
flag doctrine.
But the people who have relied on the past should continue. And
I believe if you get it in front of this county commission and you get a
decision, you're going to hear from both sides of the public on this
issue. This issue should not be decided by an administrator who has
no standards and you end up in court, and you'll find out how fast that
court case will go away.
And the purpose of the court case was not to say that. But what
I'm trying to say, this is a practical matter and it should be addressed
by the commission at a full-blown public hearing and not
clandestinely done through the backdoor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. LENICK: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions by commissioners? We
have -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just by -- for Mrs. Murray.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which -- under boat canopy,
which ordinance are you viewing or making your interpretation, for
boat canopies? Is it under boathouse or canopy or--
MS. MURRAY: Well, there's no definition for boat canopy, and
Page 160
September 27, 2005
it falls under boathouse per definition of the structure and per the other
provision I read in the land development code regarding covered
structures.
If I could just real quick --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I still have more questions.
MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I have a boathouse and then I
have a boat in the house with a cover over it with it moored in the
boathouse by line, does that need a permit?
MS. MURRAY: Let me make sure --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's covering the boat.
MS. MURRAY: Correct, yes, it needs --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Affixated (sic).
MS. MURRAY: It needs zoning approval through the planning
commission for a boathouse, and it needs -- based on what you're
telling me -- again, I'm assuming what you're relating to is the picture;
is that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, just a scenario.
MS. MURRAY: Maybe I better not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I have a boathouse, I put
a boat in it now, and then I buy a cover for a -- a formfitted cover for
the boat.
MS. MURRAY: Right. That's not --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then I take it and tie it to the --
fixate it to the dock. Does it need a permit?
MS. MURRAY: Commissioner, based on what you're telling me
-- and again, I always like to preface my comments with the fact that I
want to examine all the facts. But I will attempt to answer your
question, and I believe the answer would be no in that case. You're
talking about a boat cover, I think, is probably a better way to describe
it where you -- in fact, I may have a picture of that, but you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that's what --
Page 161
September 27,2005
MS. MURRAY: You're kind of discovering something -- or
describing something that relies on the boat itself to support it, and the
boat itself is not a structure per the land development code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the cover--
MS. MURRAY: You may tie it to secure it, but I think primarily
the security is provided by the frame of the boat, which is not
consistent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think they have the same
purposes. The canopy and a cover is there to protect the boat. But the
difference is, in this case what you're saying is the canopy is affixated
to the dock, and that's where it makes a distinction?
MS. MURRAY: It relies on a frame attached to the dock in most
cases, which then makes it a structure, okay, and it's relying on that
frame attached to the dock as a structure for support.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. MURRAY: Real quick, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to
point out that one of the arguments -- and I'm not going to -- it will be
two seconds here.
No standards for your administrator to apply when making an
interpretation about the particular use. Those are found in section
10.02.02, talks about procedures for official interpretations,
determination of completeness, the form, the notice requirements,
effective time limits, appeal provisions, and also describes your role
for appeals.
The second point I wanted to make was Mr. Lenick mentioned
that people had come up asking for building permits for these type of
structures. Because this required zoning approval first, they can't get a
building permit until they have zoning approval, okay?
And I do have history on Mr. Fuller, if you're interested. I didn't
really think it was germane to this official interpretation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're only concerned with your
interpretation right now. That's all we're going to be talking about.
Page 162
September 27,2005
And Commissioner Halas?
MS. MURRAY: One last thing, I'm sorry. I did want to enter
some information into the record, just background that I had provided
to you and a copy of my response as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's, the -- under
considerations page 2 of 88, I think it makes it pretty clear, the
aesthetic regulations include that the requirements are that all
boathouses, cover structures on the docks, shall be completely open on
all four sides, and that the roofing material and the roof color shall be
the same as the material and color used in the principal structure
unless the structure is palm fronds, such as a chickee hut.
And if we look also at -- at page 25 of 88 and 26 of 88, I think
you get the idea of what a boathouse looks like and then what we're
talking about as far as the structure here. And if we look at it, one is
wide open and the other one is somewhat closed where it impedes the
view of the surrounding residents, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Murray, you're going to
submit something into the record that you said that you provided to us.
The only thing that I know that I have was in our packet. So do I
need to give more disclosures? Did you provide me more
information?
MS. MURRAY: No. This is all the backup. Let me just make
sure. Yeah, you make a good point. I'm sorry. I probably should
have read exactly what I was going to put in there.
And I don't even need to put all this in there because we didn't
mention it, so I just had it in my file.
I had minutes of the meeting from 1997, June 4th and May 21st
where the Board of County Commissioners actually adopted this
prOVISIon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it in our --
Page 163
September 27, 2005
MS. MURRAY: No. That is not. Now, I did provide you
minutes --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the county attorney
would say if it hasn't been submitted --
MS. MURRAY: No problem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that we're not going to bring
any new evidence out, so what's fair is fair.
MR. WEIGEL: Correct.
MS. MURRAY: Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. I
apologize. That wasn't intentional.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there anything else that you're wanting
to put in the record that is not in our packet?
MS. MURRAY: I do want to put in a copy of my official -- my
response to the official interpretation. It was only summarized in your
executive summary, and I'm not comfortable with that. It was
publicly noticed, so it's not anything that -- it's public record. I didn't
know if that was a problem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a big problem with that.
If we only got a summary of an official interpretation, how am I going
to make a decision on this if we only got a summary?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney?
County Attorney, Commissioner Henning has raised a good
question.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, he has. Patrick White will give the
response.
MR. WHITE: Again, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White.
The way that our land development code structures the BZA
appeal process is that the appellant has 30 days from the time that the
opinion is rendered, the official interpretation is rendered, to provide
all of the arguments and backup materials to the county.
There is no similar procedural preclusion against the county
presenting its case today that arguably is in support of the director's
Page 164
September 27, 2005
interpretation. And it would seem to me that nothing could be more
fundamental to the record than the actual interpretation itself.
Now, I don't know of any procedural defect that arises from it not
having been put into your packets that otherwise isn't cured by simply
being put into the record today.
I understand that there's a concern that it may not seem to be fair
play. The rules are structured in such a way that it allows the county
to present its case today.
Now, we've done what we think is appropriate to allow you the
appellants to know what the county's arguments are going to be and
what documents are going to be presented today.
And I think it's absolutely fair to say that the actual interpretation
itself is something that the appellants have had adequate opportunity
to review and that they were given a copy of such that it is not
anything new to the record today. It is as old as the appeal itself
because it is what is being appealed from. So it would seem
fundamental to allow it to be considered appropriate to be part of the
record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I appreciate that
clarification. It puts it -- it puts the onus on the person that's appealing
to make sure that all his documents are here, but it --
MR. WHITE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- doesn't say that the county
doesn't have to do that.
MR. WHITE: Yes. But we've always followed those
fundamental notions of due process and fair play by providing to
opposing counsel, including the e-mail that we sent yesterday that
kind of laid out the procedural steps of today's hearing so that they're
aware of it, so that they have the opportunity to be prepared and fully
able to present their case to you based on their arguments that they
raised within 30 days of the appeal of the interpretation being
Page 165
September 27,2005
rendered.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was the complete official
interpretation included in my packet or the other commissioners'
packets?
MR. WHITE: It was in your prior packet from two weeks ago.
That one didn't include the petition that the appellants had filed. And
due to some oddities of the nova system, it was discovered that the
actual interpretation, which is the subj ect of the appeal today, wasn't
included in those packets.
But you've obviously seen it before. You had to have read it in
order to know what the appeal is. And certainly it isn't any procedural
defect from the perspective of the appellants because that is what they
based their appeal on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to make a decision
on this because I don't have complete information, and that's what I'm
hearing.
MR. WHITE: Well, I understanding what you're saying. But
what you're suggesting, sir, is that you didn't know you didn't have it,
and now that you know that you don't have it, it makes a difference.
I don't know that as to the process it changes anything. It may
change your vote certainly, and that's appropriate. But -- as to the
process, which is what you're asking me to advise you about, I don't
believe that it changes anything for the county to seek to put into
evidence into the record the very interpretation itself.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Any other comments, questions by commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well.
MR. LENICK: Mr. Chairman, I know it's unusual, but I'd like to
assert my right to cross-examine, I think her name is Susan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is not a court of law, is it?
MR. WEIGEL: He does have that opportunity under the process
Page 166
September 27, 2005
of the appeal. Additionally, I would note for the chair and the board,
there are, I believe, four speakers that have signed up as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. LENICK: Would you state your name for the record,
please.
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray.
MR. LENICK: Ms. Susan Murray, you state that there was an
interpretation or an application of standard under chapter 10 of the
code?
MS. MURRAY: Correct.
MR. LENICK: Doesn't that chapter apply when there is a--
when you make the first -- you have to make the decision if there's a
boathouse, and then if there is, then you have to go through that land
process, the county -- the commission process, the zoning and county
-- or your administrative process?
MS. MURRAY: I don't understand your question, sorry.
MR. LENICK: Where is that provision that gives you the right
to make an interpretation under chapter 10?
MS. MURRAY: 10.02.02, as read into the record.
MR. LENICK: Is that not for applications for a boathouse?
MS. MURRAY: No, it's not.
MR. LENICK: Okay. A submittal requirement for application
requires an environmental impact statement. So when somebody
wants to put a cover over their docks, they've got to have an
environmental impact statement?
MS. MURRAY: I'm not sure which provision you're referring to.
I don't have it in front of me. I don't have it memorized.
MR. LENICK: 10.02.02(A). I'm just trying to point out, Ms.
Murray -- and I'll cut to the chase on this. There's nothing to hide on
this type of thing -- that this provision applies not to a normal building
permit situation, does it?
MS. MURRAY: I think you are questioning me on the rules for
Page 167
September 27,2005
the official interpretation, and that is what I was responding to.
MR. LENICK: Right. The 10.02.02, as your submittal. You're
saying that they have to do an environmental impact statement. I
mean, there's a list of things which apply, but that primarily applies to
a situation where somebody's going to put in a true boathouse, right?
MS. MURRAY: I think you're mixing up --
MR. LENICK: Let me cut to the chase.
MS. MURRAY: -- the official interpretation versus application
for a boathouse.
MR. LENI CK: If this thing was determined to be a canopy, a
shade -- a tent canopy or a canopy shade, as in the definition I had in
my example, they wouldn't follow this process, would they?
MS. MURRAY: For vehicular canopies, they don't have to
follow the same processes of the boathouse because it's not a
boathouse.
MR. LENICK: So that's -- the decision is, is this a canopy shade
or something other than a boathouse, that's a decision that has to be
made first before these provisions apply, right?
MS. MURRAY: Right.
MR. LENICK: Therefore, these provisions don't apply until that
decision is made, correct?
MS. MURRAY: Correct.
MR. LENICK: Now, where are the standards that allow you to
make that decision?
MS. MURRAY: In the land development code.
MR. LENICK: No. Where in the land development code?
MS. MURRAY: The provisions that authorize me as the zoning
director to interpretation the land development code.
MR. LENICK: Well, that's where I went back to and that was
con --
MS. MURRAY: 10.02.02.
MR. LENICK: Well, no. You said that that wouldn't apply to
Page 168
September 27, 2005
the tent shade situation?
MS. MURRAY: I think you're kind of mixing processes up, so
I'm not sure where you're going and how I can answer your question.
MR. LENICK: You don't really know when 10 dash two oh two
really applies, do you?
MS. MURRAY: I'm not sure you do. I do.
MR. LENICK: Okay. You said that it does not apply to a tent
shade situation, correct?
MS. MURRAY: Let me back up and say 10.02.02 applies when
somebody makes a formal request and pays a fee and it's determined
to be sufficient per the provisions of the land development code.
MR. LENICK: Okay. What we're looking for -- then when
somebody applies for a tent shade, does -- do they have to have an
environmental impact statement?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm going to note for the record an objection
because this is not an appeal concerning a tent shade.
MR. LENI CK: This is a -- the purpose of the argument is very
simple. It's a -- the precursor decision is, is this thing something other
than a boathouse? That decision -- in order to make that decision, you
have to find standards that apply before you go into chapter 10. Once
you make a decision that it's a boathouse, then there's a process that
you're going through that requires the going through this.
But if this is a simple permit for a, like you see, the little
aluminum poles and a canvas top, don't go through all of these things
-- this procedure, and there is no standard. There is no standard for the
interpretation of the use.
She already told you that she does not -- that does not apply if it
was a tent.
MS . MURRAY: Vehicular cover on land.
MR. LENICK: Right. So it doesn't apply. Chapter 10 doesn't
apply then, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you suggesting that --
Page 169
September 27,2005
MS. MURRAY: It's not relevant.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you suggesting that Ms. Murray
does not have the right to look at two definitions and determine which
definition this petition falls under?
MR. LENICK: Absolutely, and here's the reason, because
normally in most zoning codes, they'll give you a standard by which
you apply in making that decision. You go -- your chapter -- it's on
my first page.
Rules for interpretation, 2.04.01. If you go there, the only thing
-- it sounds like it gives you the right to make the interpretation, but
when you go to 2.04.01 and you read it carefully, it has no standard
that covers --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we've already read it fairly
carefully.
Okay. We're going to proceed with this hearing.
MR. LENICK: I guess maybe -- well, it's up to you, but I would
like to --
MR. WEIGEL: It appears to me that the cross-examination is
over and Mr. Lenick is making either part of his final argument or
approaching his final argument there, but you do have four speakers to
hear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to hear the speakers
right now.
MR. LENICK: Okay. I would like to make one objection, if I
could, on the record, and that is, the disclosure should be specific as to
who you talked to and not in general, and I want to make sure that
that's part of the record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we've already done our
disclosures, haven't we?
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. WHITE: I take substance of Mr. Lenick's objection to be
Page 170
September 27,2005
one that he has the opportunity to cure in this very hearing. In other
words, if he was not satisfied with the scope of your disclosures as to
ex parte communications, he has every opportunity, just as he
cross-examined the last witness, to be able to inquire of you to
whatever depth and scope he thinks is appropriate. And ifhe's going to
let stand his bare objection, that's his choice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think there were only two
commissioners who said that they'd talked with anybody at all about
this, but nevertheless.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, I have all my disclosures right
here.
MR. LENICK: Okay. What I believe the law requires is who
spoke to you and that you state who it is on the record, and so people
who then are speaking know who you had spoken to and then if there's
a possibility of bias or not, that's all. And I don't believe a general
statement of that, I spoke to -- I got some e-mails and I had some
letters would suffice. That's all I'm doing is doing an objection.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's right here, sir. You're more than
welcome to look at every bit of the correspondence response that I
have here.
MR. LENICK: I will do so, sir. But I appreciate -- I believe it
should have been done before the meeting, or before the beginning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was, I believe.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it was.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I hate to interject. But I think if
Mr. Lenick wants to have that specific information, and he's going to
take the opportunity to review Commissioner Halas's file, and he has
any further questions, that you give him the opportunity to ask those
questions before we conclude the hearing so that there's no question as
to the appropriateness of the disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are there any other
commissioners who had any other disclosures at all on this item?
Page 171
September 27,2005
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I talked to Jim Mudd, my
one-to-one with him, on this particular item. The only other disclosure
I had was way, way back when this issue first came up a couple years
ago, three, four years ago with many people that -- we're not dealing
with that. So Jim Mudd would have been my only source.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're dealing with an interpretation by
Mrs. Murray.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, you're correct. Mr. Mudd
would be my only source that I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I talked with no one, okay. And I
have no contact.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Joe Schmitt.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I spoke with Susan Murray, I
spoke with Joe Schmitt, and I spoke with Jim Mudd.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The county attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, would you like to question
any of these commissioners about what they said or did or who they
talked to?
MR. LENICK: Did Mr. Halas state on the record who he spoke
to?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, let's see, if you want every
one of them, I'd be more than glad to. Joe Schmitt, Jennifer Pelioto
(sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Belpedio?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Who else? It goes on down
here -- hold on. There's a bunch of -- Mr. Purvis, I believe, was in
here. Let's go back here just a minute. Joe Schmitt, and Mr. Purvis
again. Mike McIver, is that you? Okay. There was somebody else
Page 1 72
September 27, 2005
there, I believe, that was involved in this. B.J. Savard and -- Boyer,
Purvis again, Rob Roy is a homeowner. Attorney Brekenbeck
(phonetic) is a homeowner.
How in detail do you want this? Every one of these?
MR. LENICK: Sir, I just do an objection. It's your county
attorney that would give you advice on that. I just know that the
generalities of the -- saying it on the record --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have Mr. Purvis again on here,
Mr. Purvis again. Who else is on here? I think it's -- there was some
other correspondence here. It doesn't say. Just to Prank Halas, sir,
and then, of course, my aide sent back a -- probably a continuation of
this other one, that's what it is, yes, by a list of people here that I
mentioned, and from Bruce Burkhard. That's it, sir.
COMMISSIONER PIALA: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Am I
supposed to mention on the record who I received e-mails from or just
that I have them?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to allow the appellant's
representative to ask questions if he has any questions about any
information that any of these commissioners have. If you have
questions about them, if you want copies of them, then you tell us now
and we'll get them for you.
MR. LENICK: I understand. We will -- with regard to that, I
was surprised at how it was presented today, and I was just doing a
simple objection. And as far as that goes, how you wish to be advised
from your county commiss -- county attorney to do that, I'll do that.
All I'm doing is that when you have -- supposedly quasijudicial
hearing, biases of individuals who you spoke to pro and con need to
be made a part of the record in order for you to know who the person
talked to, and that's all I was asking.
I didn't mean to make it a big deal. I didn't know Mr. Halas had
been talking to a lot of people and I found that out, but I'm here to
represent my client and say -- state an objection if that occurs, and
Page 173
September 27,2005
maybe this will change the process you have from here on in the
future, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if you have any other suggestions
for our processes here, please share them with us.
MR. LENICK: Well, that's one of them. I would have -- I think
maybe -- you sufficiently covered it for any objection in court.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions by commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have speakers.
MS. PILSON: Would you like to hear the public speakers first?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Let's go with public speakers.
MS. PILSON: The first one is Joseph Puller. He'll be followed
by Mark Allen.
MR. PULLER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I am co-counsel
with Terry Lenick for Mr. Purvis and the Collier County Boat Owners'
Association, and my comments, I think, probably would be directed to
the arguments and follow-ups. So I think it's probably inappropriate
for me -- it's not public comment. I'm here representing my clients.
So I'm going to waive my presentation to the commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. PILSON: The next speaker is Mark Allen. He'll be followed
by Teri Purvis.
MR. ALLEN: My name's Mark Allen. I'm a resident of Collier
County for 48 years. Very proud to live here, raised my children here.
I have a boat dock lot, and I wanted to put up a lift cover on it.
This was August 20th at 1 :30 p.m., 2001, I knew there had been
some discussion on this. So I went directly to Mr. Ed Perico, the
director of the building department, Mr. Tom Kuck, who was director
of the -- interim director of the planning department at that time,
Brandon Quandt, who is the installer of these lifts, or these covers,
myself, and Mr. Bob Davy met there at Mr. Perico's office.
Now, I've been -- I am a layperson, but I'm also a licensed landn
Page 174
September 27,2005
surveyor. You know, I'm involved with the county and the codes in
many ways on a daily basis.
So I went to Mr. Perico, because I work with him. Mr. Perico, I
wish to do this, this is what I -- this is the date I have. Do I need a
permit; do I not need a permit?
And we reviewed it and we discussed it, Mr. Kuck, Mr. Perico,
and myself. He said, Mr. Perico said, quote, Mark, we had over 3,000
permits last month. If we had to permit stuff like this, we would never
get anything done. These are non-permanent in nature. They are not a
fixed structure. Based upon that opinion, Mark, I don't think you need
a permit.
Now, I did not pursue the man for a signature. I worked with
him on a daily basis. We're both professionals. I left it at that.
I had my canopies up, and then I was cited later after some other
involvement. Other folks had been cited, then I got drug into this.
So we came down here to get permits, so I submitted permits. I
couldn't get past the front desk. They wouldn't tell me why they were
rejected. And I'm saying, look, I met with the director of both
departments. I don't know how far up I'd have to go. I don't know
what to do here.
Well, anyway, so I was rejected, and it has forced me into
becoming part of the Collier County Boat Owners' Association to
question this issue.
Another thing that I found interesting, I was cited again about
two months ago, and it's interesting because my citation says, structure
to support canopy. That's what the citation says. Well, that's true,
because we had a hurricane warning, and I took my canopy down just
to save the public. That's what these things are for. They are not
boathouses.
I removed this thing so it would not be harmful to anyone, and
sure enough I was cited for that structure. They call it a structure, that
support system.
Page 175
September 27, 2005
And that's all I have to say. I just think that we've got our
terminology twisted around. I think there's some people that have
kind of dug their heels in and feel like they're making other decisions,
and that's -- that's all.
I love Collier County, I love to boat, and I'm just trying to protect
my boat. That's all I'm -- people put their cars in the carport, people
put their horses in a stall, put your cows in a barn, fire truck in the fire
station, but I can't put my -- I can't cover my boat. That's not fair.
Enough.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, sir.
MS. PILSON: The next speaker is Teri Purvis.
MS. PURVIS: I wish to let my husband speak.
MS. PILSON: The final speaker is John Purvis.
MR. PURVIS: I know you people have a tough job up there, and
I appreciate that. I've been a resident of Collier County since 1989,
and I come to Collier County, and I like to be on the water. And
obviously, the reason I'm on the water is to have a boat.
And we decided in 1997 that we saved all our money to buy a
boat and to have a dock put in, a PVC dock, nice dock, and we wanted
to protect the boat, our investment.
So we looked at canopy covers to cover it because of hurricanes.
I didn't feel that the boathouse with the tiled roof and all that was
adequate, or to take it down, it would blow up and blow back into the
house and so forth, so we went with the canopy.
The waterways that installed the canopy said, no permits needed.
I called the county. I said, do we need to get a permit for this? He
said, you don't need it. It's a canopy cover.
Okay, fine. I had a permit with all the setbacks on the dock meet
all the specifications, all the regulations, and the canopy was shown on
the drawing overtop.
And Good Priday, 2002, someone knocked on our door and says,
you've got to take that canopy down. It's illegal. You've got to have it
Page 176
September 27,2005
down. You've got to have it down Monday. I said, well, Sunday's
Easter. You've got to have it down Monday. Ah, it's 20 minutes to
take down.
So I said, where's the law? He says, well, this is a structure. And
I says, I'm a layman. I'm not an engineer and an architect. I says,
across the waterway is a boathouse. It has a -- it has a tile roof and so
on, so forth.
And I asked the guy, what's the difference between -- that's a
structure and mine's a canopy . Well, no; yours is a boathouse.
Well, how much time will it take in the event of a hurricane to
get it down quickly, to take that boathouse down?
Well, he said, you'd destroy it. You'd have to take chain -- take
the tile off, chain saw to take it down. I says, mine comes down in 20
minutes. That's why I have a canopy and not a boathouse. And so
safety was an issue, and protection of my property and my boat is an
Issue.
And again, I was issued a citation prior to the land code
development was interpreted. And it said, it'd be a fine of $250 a day,
so I take that pretty serious. And I -- also I'm a member of the -- in the
community I'm a member of the homeowners' association. We -- my
wife is in real estate. This is our community.
If we did something that would be derogatory to the community,
why would we do that? That's our business. And I want to make sure
it looks nice and I want to protect it, and that's what we put it up for.
And I appreciate you taking the time to hear us today. I know it's
a long day for you. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. We'll close the public
hearing.
MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, for the record, if I may, I know
you're in a hurry. I just -- a gentleman mentioned correspondence or
Page 1 77
September 27, 2005
speaking with Mr. Ed Perico, the former building director. And I just
wanted to enter -- and, again, I did not put this in the record previously
only because it really -- this is a zoning and a use issue. This isn't a
building department issue.
But there is some correspondence here from Mr. Perico that talks
about the requirement for a building permit and requiring that the
applicant present documentation of planning department approval of
the structure indicating compliance about the LDC provisions at that
time. So I just wanted to put that in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that has -- really has nothing to do
with your interpretation. What Mr. Perico told him in a side
conversation has nothing to do with your interpretation; is that
correct?
MS. MURRAY: My interpretation deals with the definition of a
structure and also deals with how that structure is allowed through the
land development code and -- yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. LENICK: Mr. Chairman, that letter postdated a lengthy
time after a lot of people have been told they could go, and the letter
was also something that's between her and the -- and Mr. Perico, and if
she wanted to, quote, correct him, end quote -- and I'm saying that in
quotes -- that was done subsequent to all of this stuff and after all of
these people already put up their canopies.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think I've made it clear that we're not
going to consider that, okay?
Any questions or comments by commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
the interpretation of the -- of the -- yeah. Let me get this together
here.
That we approve the interpretation that the person, Susan
Murray, came up with.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're saying that the interpretation is
Page 178
September 27,2005
supported by competent evidence?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
I'll second it.
Okay. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
And all opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3-2. The three,
Commissioners Halas, Coletta, and Coyle voting in favor of the
interpretation, and Commissioners Fiala and Henning are dissenting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, does that mean that this will
affect the entire county, including all of my constituents, like on Isle
of Capri, Goodland, and so forth?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As far as I know it's a broad
interpretation. It's not a specific situation, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: From here on in. Oh, wow.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We could give direction to make
it a permit by right in the coastal areas of Collier County, boat canopy
cover, and does not need a -- it has to go to the planning commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it does have to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm saying, we could give
direction, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're -- maybe different parts of
the community would feel differently than other parts. And what he's
saying is, maybe we could give some -- can we talk about this at
Page 1 79
September 27,2005
another time?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's not stray too far from the point.
You're talking about Ms. Murray's interpretation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. She's interpreted it based upon
her understanding of the code. And I find no competent, substantial
evidence which indicates she did not do it properly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Due diligence, exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, if --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not saying that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're not saying that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. If
you want to make the code specific to certain communities, then we
should change the code. That's the way to do it. You can't do it by
saying that the planning director made the wrong call, because what's
happening is, she's interpreting the code. And if the code allows that
interpretation and we don't like it that way, then our response is to
change the code.
MR. WHITE: You're absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. And I
think Commissioner Henning's point is well made in the sense that
there ought to be, if the board desires, some indication -- and I think
this is consistent with what the appellants themselves have sought
through argument of counsel to have a public discussion, which would
be what would occur in the LDC amendment process, about the
appropriateness, or not, of some type of regulation that creates a
further distinction between the type of a boathouse and accessory
structure that is one made of some material other than that which
would match the roof or which would meet other types of building
code requirements.
And if I take the commissioner's desire and that of Commissioner
Fiala correctly, all we would need is some direction from you for the
staff for the first cycle of next year to be able to bring forward that
Page 180
September 27,2005
arguably in conjunction with whatever suggestion these good folks
may have as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, along with that, it's
important that the commissioners also understand that these provisions
do not affect the City of Marco or the City of Naples.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, but Isle of Capri and Goodland.
And we have -- I guess our code enforcement director has said that
they have more of these on Isle of Capri than anyplace else in the
county .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, we've already said that--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, will they get ticketed because
of this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It depends on the guidance you give to
the staff right now.
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir, and that's why I didn't think it's well
timed as a legal matter that some direction be given so that the county
manager's side of the house will have some way to know what level of
prosecutorial effort they should put towards applying and protecting
the code as it's written.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But I would prefer to break that into two
different motions.
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One motion dealing with the appeal
itself and another one providing guidance to the staff with respect to
what they do with it, okay.
MR. WHITE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So now we have one motion that has
already been passed, okay, 3-2.
Now, is there a suggestion with respect to guidance for the staff
to -- to bring this back in a public hearing and correct any defects in
the code to meet the concerns of the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's my direction, but I don't
Page 181
September 27, 2005
want our county staff working on this -- or county manager staff
working on this too much unless we have a supermajority here
tonight, because that's what it takes to pass a land development code,
so I'm going to throw out there to direct staff to allow canopies in the
coastal area of Collier County -- well, let me just say just Collier
County because there are some lakes that might come up later -- with
some kind of uniformity, such as color and ambience and all those
warm, fuzzy things that I think people are looking for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're saying a fuzzy cover?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you better go on a break.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. It's getting close to that time, isn't
it? Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just give them some guidance
on bringing back to allow canopies.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hey, you understand some of the
commissioners' concerns; some of their neighborhoods might like
these things, some do not like them. Give us some alternatives so we
can deal with this, okay?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner -- and we will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Just so I can point out, on page 6 you have
given us guidance in the past, at two different occasions -- it's in your
executive. And we've been acting on that guidance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And certainly I sense a change now, and we
will do that. But that past two times we discussed this, once during
the public petition or at least a petition by Mr. Davies and Mr. Mark
Allen in regards to their boat cover and, again, during the boathouse
workshop that we had March 16, 2004, we debated this issue
extensively.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
Page 182
September 27,2005
MR. SCHMITT: But we will bring it back again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we ended it with saying maybe
they would just want it in one particular area at that boathouse
workshop.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So you understand there's at least
three nods here.
MR. SCHMITT: We will bring it back.
MR. WHITE: I note that you have a motion, Mr. Chairman. If
you want to make it more formal, I think that will help the staff and
particularly may help Commissioner Henning if there's indication that
there's adequate support.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would just like to add that I think
we need to look at the aesthetics of the issue through all of Collier
County. So just to say that we want to put up canopies, I think there's
a lot that we need to add into this to make sure that we look at this
very objectively as far as the aesthetics, how it affects the view plain
of neighboring neighbors on both sides, so I think those are issues that
also need to be put into this equation --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's not --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- before we proceed on. I think
boathouses are adequate.
MR. SCHMITT: That's all integral in what goes before the
planning commission as part of the review for a boathouse. And if
you want these to be considered under that category, we'll bring it
back.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
Page 183
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. SCHMITT: It's all part of the review.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, County Attorney, you were
suggesting that it would be better to have a formal motion; why is
that?
MR. WHITE: I believe that the concern then, if there are four or
five nods, then certainly I think that that -- and I don't mean to speak
for Commissioner Henning in any way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It solves his problem --
MR. WHITE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- because there's a supermajority.
MR. WHITE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's at least four.
MR. WHITE: Very good, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are at least four nods here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my people won't be ticked or
cited because of this now, will they, until we come up with some new
wording that we can all agree upon?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I hope they will. Can you single
out her people and have them cited for this?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we're just asking on past
guidance. We've issued numerous NOVs. We've been withholding
bringing any of these to the code enforcement board until this issue
was decided. We will continue, based on your direction, to withhold
any action by the code enforcement board.
But I have to look to the county attorney on that to look back at
this.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we'll look back -- we'll look back at you,
but the thing is that the county attorney doesn't prosecute or not
prosecute. I think the issue is the -- the issue is the issuance ofNOVs
in the first place, because I think the concern is, we don't want to cite a
bunch of people even if we put them in limbo, because once you get
Page 184
September 27, 2005
the citation, you are concerned about this type thing.
So I think what the board's looking for is, are we, in the
meantime, with the direction that's just been given, not to cite any
more and give assurance to those people that have been cited by notice
of violation that they will not be prosecuted to the code enforcement
board, but that they will be placed on hold. I think that's what we're
looking for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is consistent with our past policy on
other items of this nature.
MR. WHITE: And I think there's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifwe have a pending change, a land
development code change it has been our policy not to enforce.
MR. WHITE: Certainly that's correct, sir. And I think the only
other consideration that the board may want to give today is to the fact
that there's pending litigation in regards to some of the appellants and
their rights.
And our office's advice, I think, in future meetings, both as to the
NOVs and as to any change in regulation and, in fact, as to how we
defend that lawsuit are things that we're going to have to consider
separately.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But we need to get off this item--
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and move ahead. All right?
Mr. Mudd, let's go.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- that brings us--
well, there's a time --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. We're going to take a
10-minute break. Be back here at 4:22.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
Page 185
September 27,2005
Item #14A
REQUEST FOR LDC DEVIATIONS FOR SONA - SDP #7905, A
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITHIN THE BA YSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Mudd. We're going now to 7B; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, 7 -- excuse me. We have a time certain,
SIr.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Time certain.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. MUDD: And this is item 14A, and that was supposed to be
at 3:30. We're about -- we're about an hour late for those folks that are
in the audience.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I will tell you that this is under 14,
but it should be under the county manager's piece because you're
acting as the Board of County Commissioners. You are not acting as
the CRA in this particular regard, so I just wanted to make that clear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got 13.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is actually 10D -- no.
MR. MUDD: No, sir, 14A. Please go to 14A. That has to do
with SoNa. That was a 3:30 time certain.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It says 14G1, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: G 1.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 14A?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It used to -- remember I made a
correction, said it was 14 one and it should have been 14A during the
correction sheet this morning? It's on page 5 of 12 of your agenda.
Page 186
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have --
MR. MUDD: And it should be under tab 14. It says 14G1 on the
top --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That helps.
MR. MUDD: But it should be --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 14G1?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. Now we're ready.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now we're sitting as the Board of
Zoning Appeals in this particular case or not?
MR. MUDD: No, sir; no, sir. You're acting as the Board of
County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually Board of County
Commissioners, not CRA, right?
MR. MUDD: That's right. This item to be heard at 3:30. It's
consideration of a request for the land development code deviations
for SoNa, SDP number 7905, a redevelopment project within the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA.
And I believe Mr. David Jackson is going to present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. David?
MR. MUDD: Or is it going to be Mr. Clark Russell?
MR. JACKSON: Both of us, sir.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, Executive Director of the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency. I'm
here on behalf of the community redevelopment agency board that
met on September 8th.
And at that board meeting they had heard the SoN a proj ect,
which is the old Thalheimer building proj ect, and they had some
Page 187
September 27,2005
requests and discussion between the CRA board.
The CRA board asked for this to come back before the Board of
County Commissioners because when the CRA was created, it was
given this immense amount of responsibility, but they don't have any
authority to deal with the issues that SoNa has. So the authority
comes from the Board of County Commissioners, and that's why it's
presented here before you today, and they're here to discuss that.
So the CRA board has talked about it and launched it over to the
Board of County Commissioners, and the applicant will be
represented by Mr. Clark Russell and -- for their deviations request on
three different items.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Clark, good seeing you.
MR. RUSSELL: Good to see you. Thank you very much,
County Commission, County Manager Mudd, as well.
We appreciate the opportunity. For the record, my name is Clark
Russell, representing two and three-eights, LLC, (sic), the petitioner
on this testimony.
We're all familiar with it. I will tell you that actually the project
is still called SoN a because we believe in South Naples East Naples,
the energy we're trying to infuse there, but the lounge will have a
different name which will be unveiled on opening night, which
hopefully will be -- hopefully will be very, very soon.
We do have a couple of issues that we've already viewed;
landscaping, which is in your packet. I don't want to take up a lot of
your time on that. Basically we agree with staff comments. If they
interpret that the quantity of landscaping is not being increased
because the back half of this parcel, which you'll receive later in Mr.
Hagan's presentation, if they believe that it is landscaping, so be it.
Then in fact, we are using that area and we're not increasing the
quantity, but as far as manicured landscaping, really creative stuff,
where we've had Gale Boreman put together some wonderful plans.
Page 188
September 27, 2005
We think we've made vast improvements, but it still won't meet
the overall quantity aspects, and we seek that relief, which you have in
your packet.
Item two, for stormwater. It is what it is. We know that the
Gateway Triangle area has these issues. We all know it. There used
to be a lake; it's gone. It never did much anyway. There's not a lot of
. .
engIneenng.
Our proposal, first, does no harm. In fact, it increases the
engineering and the infrastructure in the area toward a common
stormwater system, and that's what the area needs in order to achieve
redevelopment.
We have met with your consultants. We have met with your
staff. We have spoken to the South Florida Water Management
District. Pretty much everybody agrees, if you reconstitute that lake
or if you require everyone to have their stormwater on site, you're
simply not going to be able to achieve the vision that the CRA and the
advisory board community desires, and that's that wonderful
streetscape of new buildings and economic vitality. They're simply
conflicting parts of the code.
Mr. Chris Hagan will do a presentation, brief, on all the
engineering and the really smart stuff to explain our case to you. We
are available for any comments, any questions. We would like the
chance to respond, Mr. Chairman, after county staff has made any
statements or any presentations as well.
Do you have any questions of me right now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have some questions. When
you were in the process of purchasing this land, did you look at the
aspects of stormwater and all the other problems that you were going
to run into?
Page 189
September 27,2005
MR. RUSSELL: Absolutely. We did full due diligence.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how were you going to
address the stormwater issue since, I believe that this property is
below level, to start with? And I think that the way you're going to
handle this stormwater issue is just to push it out into the street at the
present time.
MR. RUSSELL: Currently, sir, the plan is -- and Mr. Hagan will
have more details. We did meet with water management people, we
did meet with county staff and your consultants to discuss what needs
to be done for this parcel, but also for the area that equals a
meaningful redevelopment so that the big financial contribution that
this is making to the area creates something that's going to last a long
time.
And with that infrastructure, our pipes are actually going to start
flowing the water, which currently just uses gravity and winds its way,
you're right, to the street. We're going to connect to the pipes that are
underneath Commercial, so we're actually utilizing the existing
stormwater system.
Now, where that system goes if it becomes part of a system of
lakes or discharge into another body of water, that is yet to be
designed by your staff and some consultants.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I guess I'm going to wait for
the staff to see how they're going to address this. I have no issue with
the landscaping. I think we can work that out. And I think that you
talked about having valet parking or something, so that --
MR. RUSSELL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- probably would be taken care of.
My main issue is that we have a continuing problem with
stormwater in that particular area. And I don't feel comfortable. I'll
wait till staff gives their presentation before I make a decision on
which way I'm going to vote on this, but I can assure you that
stormwater is the utmost importance in this proj ect.
Page 190
September 27,2005
MR. RUSSELL: And it is to us. We want to be good neighbors.
In fact, one of our pipes actually runs underneath our property,
because of the current gravity flow, so that when we create a higher
parking lot, the U-Haul to our west won't flood and back up.
Additionally, we're actually adding infrastructure that will
connect to a system which we believe needs to be designed in the
future. We have spoken to the number one and two guys up in Ft.
Myers at the water management district who say, this is, to me, a
reasonable process because it doesn't make it perfect -- I concur, sir.
We can't do perfect. This is urban infill redevelopment. But we can
make it better, and that's how we get the energy going, we get the
redevelopment moving in the area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There is a motion on the floor, by the
way, by Commissioner Henning to approve. Commissioner Fiala has
seconded it.
Are there any questions by commissioners concerning the
motion? Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are we going to hear from the
staffs side in regards to this issue of stormwater?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to leave that up to the motion
maker.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Commissioner Halas
deserves a little bit of explanation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But, Commissioner, I think you
already have his answer is, we've been buying up property in this
triangle to facilitate stormwater improvements, and it needs to be, like
was stated, it needs to be developed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to hear from staff to let us
know where we're at on this issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
Page 191
September 27,2005
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, if I may, could we -- for our
consultant's presentation, this may answer some of the questions as
well. It's up to you on time. It's eight minutes long. He practiced
very hard.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to hear from staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas would like to hear
from staff. I'm going to give staff three minutes, and I'm going to give
the consultant three minutes.
MR. KUCK: For the record Tom Kuck, engineering director--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Start the timer.
MR. KUCK: -- county engineer. Our concern is that the project
as submitted does not meet South Florida Water Management's
requirements for water quality or water quantity. And South Florida
delegated that authority to Collier County that we can review projects
40 acres and less and no projects that have environmental issues on it.
So the only way that my staff would consider approving it is if
they get the approval from South Florida Water Management since
they delegated that authority and we're bound to meet their
requirements. And if South Florida reviews it or we can turn it over to
South Florida Water Management, that's an option we have.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. KUCK: But our analysis of the project, it's not standing
alone and they're not providing the necessary requirements.
I understand there's going to be a redevelopment district. But is
that two years from now, five years, or 10 years? I just want to bring
it to everybody's attention that there is a drainage problem in that area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That's -- I think we know that,
too, Tom.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could help Tom for just one
second. Have we still got three minutes? How many seconds have we
got?
MS. FILSON: You have one minute and 39 seconds.
Page 192
September 27,2005
MR. MUDD: Good. Commissioner, on 3 October I plan to take
the stormwater staff and the -- part of the engineering staff along with
David Jackson and myself, and go up to the Fort Myers South Florida
Water Management District talk to them about our consolidated plan
for the triangle, try to lay that out to them and let them see what we
have so that when we get projects like SoNa that come forward, that
we can get them to agree that they'll let us approve it or they'll
approve it based on the plan.
Now, that will probably mean that we'll have to get into an
agreement with the South Florida Water Management District to
execute that plan. And so we'll work on that, and hopefully we'll be
able to move things forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I
understand your concerns and why you can't approve it. The -- the
point -- I think a couple points need to be made.
It's not going to be any worse than it is right now; is that true?
MR. KUCK: They're creating a little bit more of an impervious
area for the rear parking lot. I mean, it might be a minute amount, but
some of the area that was pervious before is now going to become
impervious. But, again, that will be negligible compared to the overall
size of the district.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the stormwater problem is really a
stormwater problem that involves the entire mini-triangle for the most
part, and much of it is the responsibility of the county to resolve; is
that a fair statement?
MR. KUCK: That's a fair statement. I might even add that, was
it two years ago, Jim, that we met on several projects out there. And it
was brought to our attention, and I think Jim said they're going to have
to create some type of a district, because this project isn't the only one
that has problems with flooding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
You have to stop talking now because your light has gone red,
Page 193
September 27, 2005
okay? But I can continue to talk.
When you go to talk with Southwest Florida Water Management
District about this, what -- will it help you any, if you agree with
them, to have a separate procedure for approval for properties within
our CRA?
MR. KUCK: Yeah. I think with the special redevelopment areas
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good.
MR. KUCK: -- that we could adopt -- and they would go
approve different criteria, realizing that, you know, it's going to take
several years to develop. But, meanwhile, if they could go ahead if it
doesn't have a real, real impact on the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, I just -- I understand your
concern. You don't want to give water management district the idea
that you're just disregarding standards. And if you can confine -- if
you can you get some flexibility for the CRA area and if they will
agree to that, that will solve this particular problem, right?
MR. KUCK: That's right, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thanks, Tom.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just -- I'm going to be very
brief here. My concern is, when we look at each one of these
redevelopment areas, the diminimis water that is coming off of these
areas, obviously, is going to add up, so I'm hoping that we just don't
look at this as saying, it's negligible, no problem, because as we start
to redevelop this area, if we don't address the stormwater issue, then
we're going to have some real problems, because each portion or -- of
redevelopment in regards to the stormwater issue. The diminimis part
will start to add up and will mean something -- be an -- end up being a
heck of a big impact in that area.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to have to convince the
South Florida Water Management District that we have water quality
Page 194
September 27,2005
ponds that we're going to create with land that we own -- and we've
already purchased some properties, and this board approved those in
the past. And there will probably be about five more acres that will
come forward to you to make this all -- this project come to fruition as
far as the water quality piece is concerned, and then we can move it
out underneath of either Davis Boulevard or 41 to get it into the canal
structure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
Okay. Let's have a brief presentation. Let's -- have we answered
everybody's questions concerning this, Commissioner Halas, or you
want --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you need further presentation on this
to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the gentleman's here and he's
got three minutes. We might as well give it to him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR. RUSSELL: I will take 30 seconds of that, and I'll introduce
you.
We have spoken to Bill Foley and also to Jackie Ripp, who have
explained to us that currently there is that permit for Collier County
where the county administers the water management. The city does
the same thing.
There is no special permit yet for the Gateway Triangle area. If
we were to apply to them right now, we do not trigger their review.
We're not 40 acres. We have no wetland issues.
All they're going to do is send us back a letter of no notice,
meaning we don't have to go to them. But we will if that makes you
feel better. If that reassures you, we have spoken to them, I think we
can -- I'm positive we can accomplish this.
If there is an approval today, which we certainly hope there is,
and it is contingent upon us meeting with them and their answer is that
Page 195
September 27, 2005
we need to go through that review process, we will commit to going
through that review process.
But I am so confident that they know that you have the authority
to manage this, like the City of Naples does with all of its solutions for
all of its redevelopment, the parking deck on 5th Avenue, all of those
properties do the best they can to improve water quality. But still,
ultimately, discharge into lakes, any system, and eventually into the
bay and the gulf. This has been done. There is precedent.
I believe you actually have the authority to approve this. But if
we could have that contingency, I would greatly appreciate it. Mr.
Hagan?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We really don't have time for your
presentation now. Clark has taken all of your time.
MR. HAGAN: I'm not surprised.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's Chris Hagan with
Johnson Engineering, for the record.
Where we are is we're in a situation where the county staff has
definitive rules on redevelopment -- or on development that don't
apply to a redevelopment project. In the city and in other areas, the
water management district has stepped in and asked for just water
quality to be provided.
When we prov -- we made this as a first pass presentation to
staff, and they weren't amenable to that. They asked for something a
little more definitive that would be closer to addressing the concerns.
That's when we came up with this off-site proposal.
If all we need to do is provide water quality to the water
management district standards, we can come up with a plan to that
degree. The problem is, is the staff doesn't feel -- and I'm speaking for
you in this case, so correct me if I'm wrong, Tom -- that they have that
authority to follow just the district's rules because of ordinance 90-10
in the land development code.
So if there is an agreement between the district and the county
Page 196
September 27, 2005
that we can utilize their water quality only requirements, then we're
going to need some relief from those other aspects of the code that
reference water management.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I could see Jim Mudd was in
Commissioner Halas's office before he was in mine, because I got the
same briefing. But when Jim and I talked then, I figure there's nobody
better to know about water -- about stormwater management than Jim.
And I tasked him with going to these people at South Florida
Water Management District. I said, this is the thing you need to do.
We don't want to violate anything. We want to keep our trust with
them, but we need to put together a plan for the triangle that would be
workable, not only for this development, but for all of the other
redevelopment parcels that will be coming along so that they then
work into one good cohesive plan to handle the stormwater.
And Jim said, I'll do it. And that's exactly what he's going to do,
and I'm sure that he will be very successful with it.
So I thank Commissioner Halas for all his concern. I, too, had
the same, so did Jim Mudd, and Mr. Mudd will be going there to
handle that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
And further questions by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 197
September 27,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you very
much.
Item #10D
APPOINTED LOBBYIST FIRM J. KEITH ARNOLD &
ASSOCIATES FOR PROFESSIONAL STATE LOBBYIST
SERVICES TO REPRESENT COLLIER COUNTY - APPROVED
Now we have another time certain, don't we, for four o'clock.
We're gaining on it. We're only 45 minutes behind schedule now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one is that one?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's on 10D.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that -- yes, sir. And that has to do
with the -- to be heard at four p.m. It's a recommendation to, one,
consider three lobbying firms as reviewed by a staff selection
committee that responded to an RFP 05-3883 for Professional State
Lobbyist Services; two, choose one of the finalists to represent Collier
County; and, three, authorize the county manager to negotiation a
contract with the selected firm.
Ms. Debbie Wight, assistant to county manager, will present.
MS. WIGHT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. You have the
executive summary. And in your attachments you have the proposals
by the three firms.
Selection Committee meeting was held on Friday, September
16th. And after review, scoring, and discussion of the 19 proposals,
the top three firms in alphabetical order are as follows: Bryant, Miller
& Olive; J. Keith Arnold & Associates; Pennington, Moore,
Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar.
And what we'd like you to do is you'll hear a 10-minute
Page 198
September 27,2005
presentation from each of these firms, and then you'll have five
minutes to ask them questions. And you have the forms that Mr.
Mudd passed out to you.
And following the three presentations and your question and
answer period, if you would rate them one, two, and three, we'll
collect those, and then we'll tally up the ratings, and then you'll have a
-- you'll have a decision, hopefully, this evening.
Do you have any questions on the selection process or anything?
(N 0 response.)
MS. WIGHT: Then we'll start with -- the first is Bryant, Miller
& Olive and Cari Roth is the presenter.
MS. ROTH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. It's great to see
you again. I am Cari Roth with the firm of Bryant, Miller & Olive.
The firm is currently disclosure counsel for the county, so we
have some familiarity with your infrastructure projects. And I helped
out Mr. Weigel with your sheriffs budget appeal for a little while
before you all settled that, but it's good to be here.
I want to tell you a little bit about who we are and what we've
done, and then kind of talk a little bit as time allows about the issues
that I think are coming up, and then obviously you'll have a chance to
ask me some questions.
I am Cari Roth. I've been actually in the legislative process since
1979. Started out as an intern and then as an OPS employee, and I've
been doing this kind of a strange combination of land use and
lobbying work for 23 years.
We probably originally -- I met some of you originally when I
spent four years at the Department of Community Affairs as their
general counsel and worked with you and your staff as you went
through the -- all of your comprehensive plan amendment changes.
Weare a team. It's not just me. We have -- along with me, we
have Suzanne Van Wyk who, unfortunately, couldn't be here -- well,
it's fortunate for her, but she just started maternity leave, so she could
Page 199
September 27,2005
not make it here with me today. She'll be back by the time -- she
promises me no later than January.
I first met Susan when she was staff to the Senate committee on
community affairs. She was their staff attorney. And then when I
went over to DCA, she was working at DCA. She was a critical -- she
was our critical lead person on all the building code legislation that
went through, so she has -- she has legislative experience both as staff
to the legislature and as a lobbyist for a state agency.
She also has worked for Leon County and so has a lot of in-depth
knowledge about the issues that counties face.
Barbara Auger is also a member of our team. Barbara also served
for four years in state government with two state agencies. And
between us we've had a lot of experience with -- in critical roles in
measuring pieces of legislation.
For me, growth management. Before when I was in private
practice, we -- I was a critical person in special district legislation, fire
district legislation. Suzanne, I told you, has handled the building code
issues. Barbara Auger handled service first and a number of other
initiatives for Department of Business and Professional Regulation
and Department of Management Services.
So one of the things that I would encourage you to consider as
you consider all of these very qualified firms is that you're really not
just hiring a lobbyist to work with the legislature. You're working --
you're working, I would imagine, hiring a lobbyist to work with all the
state agencies and the governor's office and all the cabinet officers as
well. And so between us we have a lot of great contacts with the
agencies, a lot of knowledge about agency practice.
Part of what I pride myself in and our firm in is our reputation.
People have very different styles, and there's no one right style. I
think our reputation is one of hard work. And people understand that
they can rely on our word.
And when I go to them and I say, this is -- this is somebody's
Page 200
September 27,2005
position, or this is -- this is what the law is in the area, I think there's a
level of trust, based upon 23 years of work in this area, that this is a
person that will tell it straight.
We also are a firm that have clients that are primary local
government. And between our bond finance practice and what I'm
doing on the land use side -- which is a mixture of both private and
public. But the bulk of the firm is local government, and so we
understand local government issues.
Weare not a firm that has a clientele that gives us a lot of big
campaign dollars to distribute. I think our success has been built by
creative hard work, and that's kind of who we are.
You know, we -- success is -- in this business, is also built on
relationships, and we have very good relationships throughout the
legislature with your legislative delegation here in Collier County,
with the staff of the legislature, which is very critical to success in this
process, and, of course, with agency personnel.
We have experience and success with budget issues, local bills,
and all the kinds of things that, you know, potentially can come your
way.
It's, I think, a very good time for the county to get involved. I
think there's a number of issues coming up that will be, I suspect, a lot
of interest after watching the press from down here for the last couple
years.
There's a big growth management bill this last year. Both the
House and the Senate have identified a glitch bill as one of their
priorities to pass this next year. There's an impact fee task force that
I've been following on behalf of some other clients that will report to
the legislature before next year.
Eminent domain has risen up as a pretty big issue since the Kilo
decision out of the U.S. Supreme Court. The House has a select
committee on that, and the Senate judiciary committee is looking at
that as well.
Page 201
September 27, 2005
Ad valorem tax issues are always going to be up there. Once
again, we expect to see a proposal for a portability of the Save our
Homes limitation on assessed value increases and allow people
actually to take that with them as they get to another home.
But I see I've got time left, but I really don't need to talk
anymore, so -- I know that's rare for a lawyer, but --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala wants to talk now;
is that okay?
MS. ROTH: Okay. That's great. I do better with questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you tell me who our personal
representative will be from your firm?
MS. ROTH: I would be the lead person. But we work as a team,
and in my experience -- we currently represent Charlotte and Manatee,
did some work for Sarasota last year and hope to continue on with
them. It is far too much ground for one person to cover, but I
coordinate all of our activities, make sure that we're covering all the
committee meetings and keeping our clients apprised of your work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Did you help to craft that
SB360?
MS. ROTH: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, being that we have an
opposing views on some of that bill, how would you support our
views if say, for instance, another one of your clients was in favor of
SB360 and we had problems with it; how would you be able to
support both?
MS. ROTH: Well, first of all let me clarify my role in Senate
Bill 360. I mean, I think every -- every lobbyist on any issue
sometimes ends up having something in a piece of legislation that
they're working on that they're not particularly happy with or proud of.
And it's a -- you know, just like your process here is a process of give
and take.
As far as conflicts going forward, I think it's a real important
Page 202
September 27,2005
issue to discuss. I think truly any lobbyist worth their salt potentially
has some conflict issues out there.
Currently legislatively we represent Charlotte, Manatee, and I
hope to continue to represent Sarasota. We also represent Likes
Brothers, which is a big rural landowner, not here in Collier County,
but they are interested in growth management issues. That has not
been a conflict issue that's come up with Manatee or Charlotte
Counties. There has not been a problem there.
In the -- just so that there's full disclosure, I do do some legal
work for some of the developers that practice here in this county.
Done some work for Barron Collier and doing some work for Bonita
. Bay, but they don't -- they don't -- we don't represent them in front of
the legislature.
So there -- I guess my advice to you on conflicts is that there's
always the potential that it may come up. What we've done -- what
we've been able to do with our existing county clients is, those
conflicts have been avoided by communication really between the
county managers. Those folks talk and they really have been on the
same page and that's, of course, a saving grace for me.
But that's how we handle it. Is there a potential for something to
come up where I can't sit -- where I have to say, I have a client that's
on the other side of an issue, there's always that potential with
anybody with the level of experience that you're looking for and the
clientele.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was next, Commissioner Henning
or Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was, I think.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You were?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How do you -- how do you
presently feel about impact fees since you represent a couple of large
Page 203
September 27, 2005
land developers or owners?
MS. ROTH: First of all, I'm not representing them on impact fee
issues at all, so my representation on impact fees has been for the --
and I'm following the impact fee task force for the three counties that I
told you that we represent. And they're all kind of watching this
process pretty carefully.
I think at the end of the last legislative session they felt that
maybe this is the time to negotiate some parameters for impact fees,
whether it's, you know, accountability measures -- I think everyone is
very concerned, and they were vociferously fighting the impact fees
issues, and I was -- and I was the lead on that last year, successfully, I
might add, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's your feeling about the
growth bill? They call it growth management. We call it the growth
bill. What's your take on that in regards to if it -- if it -- if you had to
take a side in regards to representing the developers or representing
the counties that you represent? And I think you said you represent
three at the present time; is that correct?
MS. ROTH: Right. And I don't -- I don't represent the
developers legislatively.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You don't represent the developers
legislatively?
MS. ROTH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have any other conflicts?
Can you tell me what major special interest groups that your firm at
this present time represents?
MS. ROTH: No. I think I've told you about all of them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So when it would come to a
decision of whether you were going to represent Collier County and
the citizens in Collier County, where would your allegiance be in
regards to Collier County or the other counties that you represent
versus some of the developers that you represent?
Page 204
September 27, 2005
MS. ROTH: First of all, I don't -- I think one of the things that
you -- the way that I handle these issues -- and they come up all the
time. They don't come up in the sense of a conflict. They come up
with decision points within the legislative process. And I inform the
clients, and I give them advice about -- you know, with the -- with my
knowledge of what's going on politically, you know, that may have
nothing to do with the merit of the issue.
But, you know, part of my job is to inform my clients about
what's going on politically. If we got to a point that two of my clients
had opposing positions on a thing -- on an issue, then I would have to
recuse myself from that issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we could be assured that
the citizens here in Collier County then would have some protection if
you felt that you had a conflict of interest, that you would immediately
step forward and state that; is that correct?
MS. ROTH: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. ROTH: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did see you at the Impact Task
Force Committee.
MS. ROTH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you participated in other
committees in the recent past?
MS. ROTH: Well, I've been back out in private practice for
almost two years now. So if that was sort of the time period that we're
looking at since I've been back representing folks in the legislature
other than the state agency, yes. I mean, we follow all the legislative
committees. This particular time we have a whole bunch of task
forces and commissions that were created by last year's legislation that
we have been following, so usually I'm everywhere.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you have assisted writing
Page 205
September 27,2005
law, actually participated in writing laws in the past?
MS. ROTH: Yeah, I think that that's probably one of our strong
suits, really. I think -- you know, like I said, there are a lot of different
styles. But maybe it's my legal background, but I've always been a
lobbyist that likes to give folks options, and rather than coming in
saying this is what I want, in a theoretical sense, I come in and say,
here's what I think will work and give them an actual choice, an
amendment or whatever that I think will work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But do you recognize that our
strongest lobbyist is our delegation, local delegation?
MS. ROTH: Absolutely. They're the ones that push the buttons.
And I have to say, if it were not for Dudley Goodlette, there would
probably be impact fee legislation passed last year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I guess my final question is,
how well do you work with our delegation?
MS. ROTH: Very well. Of course, Mike Davis was very
involved throughout the process last year on growth management
issues, and Dudley Goodlette as well. And your senator, Senator
Saunders, I've known and worked for him a long time. I've been
doing this for 23 years, and we're -- some of us, and your other
choices here today, have all been at it a long time too.
So we're the constants, and the delegations change, and I make it
my point to make sure that I work well with everybody.
One last comment about the conflicts issue. A lot of large
counties or counties with a lot of issues will actually end up hiring a
team of lobbyists. Part of that is to make sure that they maximum
their contacts with critical legislators and sometimes to make sure that
they've got somebody that can always take up an issue if there are
conflict issues because, like I said, they just come up with any lobbyist
worth their salt.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anyone else have any questions?
Page 206
September 27, 2005
Ms. Roth, I have a couple of questions, and they pertain to how--
what process do you use to make sure that your clients are well
informed and have the opportunity to respond to bills? And I will
specifically address the impact fee legislation which seemed to pop up
out of nowhere and get ahead of steam without local governments not
really even knowing about it. How would you --
MS. ROTH: See, you should have had a lobbyist and you would
have known about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you're right. We sort of thought
we'd hear from our legislators about it, but I guess that doesn't always
work. How do you solve that problem?
MS. ROTH: Well, let me tell you how -- what we do to
communicate, and I think communication really is important to any
successful client relationship, no matter what the activity is. But I
think it's really critical here because things move very quickly.
In the impact fee legislation, there was actually legislation filed,
and it had stalled out very well in the House, but that didn't stop the
Senate from continuing to put new versions in the growth management
bill. So that -- you know, the -- what we do is -- well, let me just lay
out what we're doing for Charlotte County.
In about a week and a half I'll be down there going over what I --
what we expect to see as issues this year, having them set their
legislative priorities. And what I encourage them to do is -- you
know, not everything can be a priority because we can't be
everywhere. You know, pick the kinds of things that are particularly
important to you or where you feel like your association lobbyists are
maybe not as capable or just can't tell your story as well. So you set
your properties.
And then I have a key contact person who's the -- in Charlotte's
case is the assistant county manager, and I will -- we will shoot bills to
her as they are filed. Say, please review these. You know, this might
have an impact. And so she's our point person. She distributes those
Page 207
September 27, 2005
around the county staff and asks for -- asks for review.
If I've got something that comes up quickly, she's my point
person. And I say, I need an answer on this really quickly. But I don't
get to make the policy decisions. You guys make those.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Appreciate you coming down to talk with us.
MS. ROTH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I had one other question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When you were up at the
conference Friday, or the workshop up there --
MS. ROTH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- with regards to the committee
that was formed by the governor, and when you listened to the
feedback from other county commissioners and other special interest
groups in there, what is your take on where the counties might stand
now in regards to upcoming legislation that will address impact fees?
Do you think that we -- your observation, do you think that we gained
any ground, or did we lose ground, your observation?
MS. ROTH: Well, I think the Association of Counties is going to
maintain their traditional position of -- that no legislation is needed.
I think -- I think that this -- the issue of infrastructure funding is
going to be a huge issue, whether it's done this year or in the next
coming years, but I really see actually a kind of a perfect storm
coming about this, because you've got, you know, the class size
amendment, which is putting a huge burden on school construction,
you've got school concurrency coming out of this last year's
legislation, a requirement that you have financially feasible capital
improvements elements by 2007.
And all that means to me is there's going to be more money
needed. And so I think the fighting's going to start about who pays
and when they pay. And I've been trying to make that point to
Page 208
September 27,2005
everybody involved in the impact fee legislation, that they can't
consider that in a vacuum.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I do have one more question. That
prompts me to ask a question. And this really probably has less to do
with the interview than just picking your brains a little bit with respect
to your experience with the Department of Community Affairs.
But why is it difficult, so difficult, to convince people in
Tallahassee that the counties have different problems and there are
different solutions that could be applied to solve those problems with
respect to infrastructure?
Why can't we have something that recognizes that? What's your
personal view on that particular issue? Why must we mandate a
cookie cutter growth management bill on all 67 counties in Florida
without recognizing the very real difference in needs and solutions?
MS. ROTH: Well, I -- there's a good part of the growth
management legislation that allows some local flexibility in how the
implementation is made in terms of why have the -- why do the
counties keep facing the threat of impact fee legislation.
I think the counties are doing a pretty good job right now of
educating the task force and other decision makers that every county is
different, your revenue streams are different, your infrastructure
demands are different, your growth is different, ad nauseam.
So I -- at least not out of task force. I'm feeling a little more
confident after last Friday that they're not going to impose kind of a
singular methodology.
But I have to say, and you may not like to hear this, but we've got
to break down some of the communication walls between legislature
and local government, because I think that -- and I've actually sat
down with Chris Holly, the new director at F AC and encouraged him
to have a F AC mission to have every county commission sit down
with their delegation and go over your adopted budget, because there's
Page 209
September 27,2005
a lot of misinformation out there.
You know, they think that you guys are raking in the money
because of increases in appraised property values and that you're
misspending the money. So they need to understand -- and that's -- I
mean, I've heard -- I've actually heard legislators say that on record,
not many. But to me it says that they don't know what you do, they
don't know what you do with the money.
And, you know, maybe I'm a -- you know, you don't do this work
if you're not an optimist. So I'm an optimist that maybe that kind of
co-education would work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. ROTH: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: The next firm to present -- go ahead.
MS. WIGHT: J. Keith Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Ms. Wight.
Obviously, I want to thank all of you for the opportunity to speak
to you today, and certainly I've enjoyed a wonderful relationship with
you over the last several years. The opportunity to work with you has
been an enjoyable one. I enjoyed doing a few thing for you this
session and look forward to the opportunity to work with you again in
the future.
F or the record, my name is Keith Arnold, and I'm here on behalf
of our firm, J. Keith Arnold & Associates.
And I'd like at first to acknowledge my gratefulness to the rank
with the competition that we have before us today.
I got to meet Pete Dunbar in 1982 when he was already a
member of the legislature and I had just joined, and he was a fiery
debater from Pinellas County and certainly, in many respects, a
mentor. He certainly has established a great firm in Tallahassee, and
he would do well for you.
And, likewise, Cari and her firm -- I've known Cari, actually
believe it or not, Pete, a little bit longer. We went to law school
Page 210
September 27, 2005
together. And I, too, started in 1979 in the legislative process. I, too,
started as an intern and have never left Tallahassee in the intervening
years working continuously in the process in one way or the other.
I had the pleasure of meeting her named partner at one time,
Governor Farris, who no longer is with us. And they have an equally
prestigious firm in Tallahassee. This commission would be served
well by, I think, any selection that you may make.
I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Leland Taylor. He's joined our
firm. Actually has been with us, then left to go to law school, and just
graduated from law school and passed the bar, and now has to sit for
the ethics portion of the bar, I might add, and he's come back to work
with us in Tallahassee. He does hail from Southwest Florida and has
worked for our firm on and off for five years.
Also working for us will be Mr. Brett Bacot. You've met him
before. He intended to be here today, was getting ready to drive down
here, went to bed last night and woke up with the flu this morning, and
has been pretty much incapacitated throughout the day. And you've
met him or worked with him in the past, and certainly we look
forward to working with you in the future should that be your
decision.
Our firm also employs contract lobbyists where appropriate on
various issues, and we do that for a lot of our clients, and presently we
have two contract lobbyists engaged.
The decision to select a lobbyist is not necessarily an easy one.
There are many bills in Tallahassee, many issues to deal with. It's
hard to believe in the course of a two-month session, the legislature
will decide on almost 3,000 bills, tens of thousands of amendments,
and your issues, our issues, sometimes tend to get lost in that process.
I think it's important to reiterate a little bit about what Cari
suggested to you, and that is, it is an all-encompassing process, it has
to involve team work, it has to involve you, effectively, lobbying the
legislature, alongside of your local delegation, and it has to involve us.
Page 211
September 27,2005
And I think that we can only be effective as long as the team is
effective. And when there's a breakdown in communication, it
becomes very difficult.
Lobbying does not begin with the legislative session. And,
perhaps, this is what I would offer as a distinction that we bring to the
table. Lobbying begins, really, in this community, as soon as
tomorrow. You'll convene tomorrow at nine o'clock a.m. in a joint
session with the Lee County Commission here in Naples, and you will
decide how to implement the Southwest Florida transportation
authority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What time did you say that was?
MR. ARNOLD: Nine o'clock. Supposed to be on your schedule,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll still be here.
MR. ARNOLD: You may be. And so lobbying is a year-round
process. It's a process of working the delegation, working the
members of the commission. Not only lobbying through past bills in
the legislature, but working to implement them.
And tomorrow we will begin the process of the implementation
of a bill that's taken two or three years to pass, has been massaged at
the direction of Representative Davis to meet some of the issues that
you were concerned about, has been massaged by him to deal with
some of the issues the Lee County Commission was concerned about,
and is finally, in my judgment, has been worked out where you can
begin the process of moving forward on that bill.
Likewise, next Monday morning, you'll meet in this very room
with the Collier County delegation to begin the process of deciding
what bills you want to entertain to either support or fight against in the
upcoming legislative sessions.
And so what I think that we're able to do is be here with you,
work with you. And sometimes that's good, sometimes it's a little bit
difficult, but at the same time, we're here, we're local, we spend a lot
Page 212
September 27, 2005
of time with you on these issues, and these issues are our issues
because we live them each and every day as well.
When I look forward to the upcoming legislative session, I can
see two or three things of critical importance to this county. Certainly
the governor's principal objective in the next legislative sessions, I
would submit to you both potentially a special session and a regular
session, is healthcare reform.
The Medicaid bill and the proposals in Tallahassee have
tremendous fiscal impacts in the State of Florida, and potentially,
potentially, on local governments. Certainly the governor would like
to see more restrictions placed on those who receive Medicaid
benefits, and he would also like to, presumably to see, and has
suggested as often is the case, that local governments pick up a bigger
share of the Medicaid pie.
I can assure you that if the legislature moves in that direction and
picks up -- and requires of local governments to pick up and shoulder
a bigger responsibility in Medicaid, it is a never-ending deep, dark
hole that you cannot afford. Forget the infrastructure issues. When
you become part of the Medicaid payers, you become the deep pocket
that other governments, I think, would ultimately look for to help
resolve some of the issues.
You'll see those initiatives principally in the area of long-term
care. That's generally the area the legislature has suggested that local
governments pick up a higher portion of the costs, and you'll also see
it, to some extent, in rural care.
You have water quality issues and Everglades restoration issues.
We sit at the very base of what is the largest capital proj ect going in
America. Well, what was, unfortunately, until the occurrence of
Hurricane Katrina, and that is Everglades restoration.
Ten to 11 billion dollars will be spent on Everglades restoration,
and it will have a dramatic impact on the environmental quality and
the water quality of Collier County. The water we receive in the
Page 213
September 27,2005
Gordon River, the water we receive in Fakahatchee Strand, the water
we receive in the 10,000 Islands, will all be byproduct, will all come
forward from these projects, the SURP (phonetic) projects that will be
initiated by the South Florida Water Management District.
It is critical for our own environmental needs to pay attention to
that project, be a part of that project, be a voice in that project, as the
federal, state, and local governments move forward.
You also saw this year a tremendous need for beach restoration.
What Hurricane Charley did in -- to this community. And even
though we weren't an area that was directly hit by Hurricane Charley,
there was a major amount of damage done to our local beaches.
And fortunately we were successful in getting $20 million to help
with beach restoration in Collier County this year. Presumably you
will be looking for additional funds because of the effects of Katrina.
Interestingly enough, even though Katrina hit a long way from our
shores, the backwash effect had the effect of beach erosion in Lee and
Collier Counties, and I could imagine us moving forward on those
projects.
Nothing probably is more important locally than growth
management and impact fees. Certainly you've made your voices
known to those of us in Tallahassee, to your local delegation, and to
others. Clearly this is going to be a major issue in the upcoming
regular session, potentially in a special session, although I don't
necessarily see that.
And I would submit to you, from my standpoint, the legislature is
trying to develop a one-size- fits-all strategy for growth management
and impact fees in the State of Florida. And that's very, very difficult
for local governments. It's very difficult for a community like Collier
County where you've really been on the cutting edge of developing
growth management strategies and impact fee strategies.
And I would respectfully submit to you that the overall impact of
this bill will ultimately negate your ability to manage growth and to
Page 214
September 27,2005
pay for growth the way you want to in this community.
And I would also submit something else that you don't have to
look very far from our borders here to ultimately see that one size
really probably doesn't fit all.
If you look at just two neighboring counties, two, Miami/Dade to
the east and Hendry to the northeast, can you -- can we honestly argue
in Tallahassee, can we honestly make a coherent argument that the
local infrastructure needs of Hendry County and of Miami/Dade
County and of Collier County are identical and ought to be
implemented with the same identical financial strategy?
And I would tell you, that's preposterous. It's -- in the final
analysis, the effect of these bills is to tie your hands somewhat. And I
think the Florida Association of Counties did a tremendous job this
year in pulling together the communities of this state to fight that bill.
I would like to say in closing, thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you. These issues are my issues too. I live here. My family
has been in this community for over 150 years. My children go to
school here. I care passionately about these issues, as you do, and
hopefully we'll have the opportunity and look forward to the
opportunity to work with you in the future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, Mr. Arnold, I have a number
of questions here. How many full-time employees do you presently
have in your firm? And what is -- do you think is your potential
growth for future employees in your firm?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I would describe us as a boutique firm.
We're probably more representative of most of the lobbying firms in
Tallahassee. You have the extreme, the Holland and Knights with
maybe 1,000 members or so, and down like us, with three, four, or
five members.
Specifically to your question, we have three full-time employees
right now, and I have two contract lobbyists in addition to those three
Page 215
September 27,2005
employees.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And how many other
counties do you -- does your firm represent?
MR. ARNOLD: We represent currently only one other county,
Lee County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Since you live in Lee County and
since you represent Lee County in lobbying, how would that fit into
the equation if we decided to use your firm to have Collier County
being represented? Would there be a conflict?
MR. ARNOLD: I think that's a very good question, and I think
Ms. Roth answered it quite well when she said that any lobbyist worth
their salt generally has the potentiality of conflicts, ultimately because
of multiple clients. And presently we have about 10 clients, and
certainly the potential of that exists.
I would say that on the areas of growth management and impact
fees and the transportation authority, I don't see any conflict between
the five elected officials in Lee County and the five elected officials
here. Having said that, that's 10 elected officials who often find
themselves in sometimes politically contentious situations. Sometimes
they even find themselves as opponents of each other for the
legislature, as we saw in the last couple years.
The potential for conflict is certainly there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you represent any special
interest groups? And how many?
MR. ARNOLD: Depends on how you would define special
interest. I would define you as a special interest.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm looking like FPL or maybe the
Realtors of Florida or the building industry of Florida or things of this
nature.
MR. ARNOLD: No. Our practice is pretty much limited,
Commissioner Halas, to local governments, healthcare entities, private
not- for-profit organizations, and educational institutions. Specifically,
Page 216
September 27, 2005
we do not represent any developers. We do not represent any
builders.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My other question is, with
your limited resources of people -- and I don't mean this as a detriment
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- I'm wondering how well the lines
of communication will be open if we need your assistance or need
your direction in regards to a particular issue that may be coming up in
the state legislature.
MR. ARNOLD: I think in many ways, Commissioner, that I
have demonstrated my openness and availability to my clients in the
past, and certainly, certainly, to all of you. You each have my cell
phone number, you each have my home number. One of the
commissioners called me from vacation this year about a particular
interest. Another commissioner has called my home at night to try to
understand a couple of issues.
I try to make myself available to you as much as I possibly can.
Does our firm have unlimited resources? Absolutely not, and I'm not
going to sit here and tell you that we do. We are a niche firm. We are
probably more typical of the lobbying firms in Tallahassee. But I
think because of that, we really focus on our niche clients, people like
you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My final question is, what's your
working relationship with David Rivera, Mike Davis, Trudy Williams,
and Senator Saunders?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, it always varies between all those
personalities, and I'm not going to get overly specific in that. But I
will tell you that all of those individuals I've worked with, worked
with well. You have a very good delegation.
Obviously it's no secret that, unfortunately, on the transportation
authority and on a local -- on the local growth management bill, it put
Page 217
September 27,2005
you and one of the members of your delegation in a very awkward
situation. And by extension, it puts me in an awkward situation.
And we've tried -- we have addressed that. I think that we've
handled it -- both of us have handled it as professionals. But when
this commission is opposing legislators, as is your prerogative, and I
would argue, as is your obligation when the need arises, then it does
put all of us in potential situations of emotional conflict.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I'm getting -- so there
might be a possibility of a conflict?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, not -- to the extent that you agree with
local delegation on everything they do, there's not a possibility of a
local conflict. To the extent you take opposing views of the local
delegation -- which you did. You did something that I've never seen a
county commission do before.
You took an ad out in a local paper, as I recall, a full page ad, and
said, we don't agree with our legislators on these issues, call them.
And you put their name and you put their phone number, and you
stated in the ad why they were wrong. That creates difficulties for us
to deal with in Tallahassee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Get used to it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your candidness.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Arnold, when's the last time
you've been to a committee meeting?
MR. ARNOLD: I was in Tallahassee two weeks ago.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's when you were at
a committee meeting?
MR. ARNOLD: We were at committee meetings in Tallahassee,
yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Have you ever assisted
in writing law?
MR. ARNOLD: Absolutely.
Page 218
September 27, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When's--
MR. ARNOLD: I've written many laws and assisted in writing
many laws.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that was when?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I mean, just as recently as this year. I
mean, it depends -- I think it's important to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
MR. ARNOLD: -- to understand the subtleties of what Ms. Roth
was suggesting to you. There may be a hundred-page bill and our
client may be only interested in one or two paragraphs in that bill. Do
we have a role in shaping and molding that paragraph? Absolutely.
And we did that many times in the context of last year's legislative
seSSIon.
But when I was a legislators -- legislator, excuse me, we wrote
the entire law. But that's not a vacuum without the input of many
other people. And I think I would tend to suggest to you that this is
more of a collegial process --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have more questions.
MR. ARNOLD: -- than a unilateral process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we have limited time,
thanks. I'll be brief.
Healthcare is going to be a big issue. You've worked for Lee
Memorial for a number of years. They have been unsuccessful on
getting funding legislation, which you've helped them with.
MR. ARNOLD: Specifically for?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, for the hospital's needs
and the funding. And what was proposed was to put it on the backs of
local government. And it sounds like that might happen again. Which
master can we serve?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, let me -- let me take issue with the
question itself. First of all, I think we've been very successful in
getting funds from Tallahassee, and I think you're referring to the
Page 219
September 27,2005
trauma center in Lee County and Lee Memorial Hospital.
I think in many respects the failed local referendum led to our
success because keep in mind, while we were having our local
referendum in Lee County on this issue, Orange County was doing the
same thing.
And the combination of those two trauma centers almost closing
led the legislature, over a period of two years, to find funding sources
for trauma. Are they adequate? I would argue to you, they're
adequate.
But since we've begun that process, and if you remember the
local numbers, the trauma center in Lee County was losing
approximately $10 million a year.
The legislature stepped forward immediately, immediately,
subsequent to the failed referendum here and funded half of that. So
annually right now the legislature's paying $5 million to fund trauma.
And just this past year the legislature passed, and the governor signed
into law --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just -- last question.
MR. ARNOLD: -- another bill to fund trauma.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The board's always supported
the transportation authority, Southwest Florida Transportation
Authority. Lee County supported it. You had some problems with it
and had Commissioner Janes bring those issues up. Do you think,
looking back at that, that that was a wise decision, or should you have
worked with the legislation member to correct that?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, again, to make sure that the record's--
record's clear on this, the Lee County Commission voted against that
transportation authority in the year you referenced.
This board never took a vote one way or the other, it left us in a
situation where one board opposed the authority and one board
collectively, collectively, did not take a position on it. Individual
members of this board did, but the board -- the board, to my
Page 220
September 27,2005
knowledge, never has taken a collective decision on the transportation
authority .
But having said that, I went to Representative Davis,
Representative Davis came to me, and we immediately began to work
on compromises subsequent to that initial year, which have manifested
themselves in the bill you'll deal with tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What's going to happen
in the future, Mr. Arnold, when we're very supportive of something
and you were our lobbying firm at that time -- individually, we
thought something was good. What are we going to do to resolve
those instead of something -- killing something?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that's a very good question, and I
think it goes back to the communications, making sure they're open
between us, making sure they're open between the delegation
members, and making sure they're open to your neighbors to the north.
That was a particularly difficult situation when one commission
voted against the bill and said, we don't want any part of it, and this
commission did not vote one way or the other.
So it put me in a situation -- and I can remember the day, I can
remember -- I can probably go back in my calendar and find the exact
time that I came down here to Collier County to brief your staff on
this particular bill. They were concerned about it, as was I. The staff
in Lee County was concerned about it. They took it to you. I took it
to you.
And this board, in -- which is well within their purview, decided
that they didn't want to take a hard decision one way or the other on
that, where the Lee County Board made an altogether different
decision. And so it presented a difficult situation, clearly. But
specifically to your question --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We'll do it the same way?
MR. ARNOLD: No. Specifically to your question, we have to
keep the lines of communication open a little bit more, make sure thate
Page 221
September 27, 2005
the members are brought in earlier and try to work things out sooner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Will you have somebody
personally represent us, or will we like travel between the members of
your firm?
MR. ARNOLD: No, no. I would be the lead for you,
Commissioner Fiala, as I always have been.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And you already answered
one that I was going to ask. So here's my last one then. How would
you represent us if both Lee County and Collier County were vying
for the same dollars?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, that's a big pot. I don't know that I see
that. I see the other issue which Representative Henning brought up
as a more typical potential conflict between the two counties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for the elevation.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. These -- I mean, there's a big pot of
money in Tallahassee, and that pot of money -- I mean, there's -- you
have every county, every city, and many other entities vying for same
dollars. If Lee County needed beach renourishment dollars and you
needed beach renourishment dollars, you're not really competing
against each other. You're just trying to get your share of the pot
basically.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Arnold, how many
years have you represented Collier County? I don't think it's been
every year.
MR. ARNOLD: No. It was three years, and then we took a
two-year break, and then this year you hired me specifically on beach
restoration issues and to give you some independent advice on growth
management issues.
Page 222
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One thing I can say that's very
favorable of the service I've seen, is that during all those years, the
five years I've been on the commission, there's never been a time that
we, myself and other members of this commission, went to
Tallahassee that you weren't there to assist us, whether you had a
contract or not. And for that I want to personally thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: It's been my pleasure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And even this year where you
were just hired to do beach restoration, you managed to get us into
many different offices, which I appreciate, and you got to help me
meet with Senator Bennett, who's been one of the main problems for
us on the impact fee. Didn't understand his point of view then and I
still don't now, but at least I got to meet him face to face.
One of the things, it was mentioned about your connection with
Lee Memorial. And I personally am quite familiar with that because I
serve on the advisory board for the --
MR. ARNOLD: Trauma, regional advisory task force and
trauma.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, for the trauma center.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm getting to it. And
during that time, you were -- I don't recall any time that you were
supportive for local taxes so much as you were working for a lobbyist
with them in Tallahassee to try to secure funds for them; is that
correct? Or maybe I missed something.
MR. ARNOLD: That task force, nor I, nor the board of Lee
Memorial, nor the administration of Lee Memorial has done anything
over the last several years, since the failed referendum, but support
initiatives in Tallahassee for additional funding.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much, Mr.
Arnold.
Page 223
September 27,2005
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How are we doing on break time? Are
we okay? You all right? Another four hours?
MS. WIGHT: Okay. The next firm, Peter Dunbar, representing
Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar.
MR. DUNBAR: Thank you, Ms. Wight, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here.
We're honored to be among this group of well-qualified individuals.
They are experienced, they are qualified, and both Cari and Keith are
friends. And so, you will be well served on whatever choice you
make tonight in my judgment.
What I would like to do in my allotted time is to tell you a little
bit about Pennington, our approach to the representation that we think
you're asking for, and some of the assets, both tangible and intangible,
that we think we could bring to that for Collier County.
First on the firm. Pennington is a firm of -- actually the RFP says
34 professionals. We actually have two young men who sat and were
sworn in after passing the bar, so we're now 36.
Firm's main office is in Tallahassee. There is a Tampa office of
the firm that has five lawyers in it. And of that group of 36
professionals, there are 11 of us that focus on governmental affairs
related matters.
If we had the opportunity to represent Collier County, we would
assign a team of at least four people. Currently, based on what
information we have and things that we know and things that we see
on the horizon, that would include myself, Mark Delegal, who
happens to be one of our specialists, both in the appropriations process
and particularly with regard to this Medicaid push that has become a
major problem for local governments because there is an effort to try
and get counties to pick up a substantial portion of that. And for one
of our other clients, we've already experienced that and have been
working on it. Mark has been our lead.
Page 224
September 27, 2005
Third person would be Sam Bell. Sam is a former colleague of
mine in the House. He served 14 years as a member of the Florida
House. Ten of them I served with him. He also, during that time
period, was chairman of the appropriations committee. And as I'll get
to in a minute, understanding that process and how it works is
important.
The fourth person would be Martha Edenfield, and Martha is one
of our environmental and land use specialists. And for many of the
reasons that you were discussing with Ms. Roth, we think her unique
dimensions are appropriate.
In addition to that, we routinely cross-register as to our clients so
that if there is a unique dimension that one of the other team members
has, they are available to Collier County as the need dictates.
We have experience both legislatively and in the executive
branch of government. I think I mentioned that we have -- two of us
have served in the legislature. There's actually a third member of the
team who spent 10 years in the legislature.
We have several general counsels of departments, myself
included, chief of staff in the governor's office, Department of
Environmental Protection, and in other locations, and we understand
how the executive branch agency works, and it is important to a
successful legislative session.
Particularly when you're looking for money and have to work
your way through the system, with Governor Bush today, in
particular, being able to effectively work with the executive branch is
important. And ultimately our success is -- our objective is to be
successful for you.
Here's the approach that I would recommend to you and what we
would routinely do, and it would be first to help the commission and
the staff isolate on the priorities that are important to you. For our
other clients, we do this at least once a year where we would issue
here in advance of the session going, okay -- and I've listened tonight,
Page 225
September 27,2005
so I already know what's on your mind to some degree.
But what you wouldn't want to be doing, I don't think, is taking
your individual resources from Collier County and creating them and
doing a function that you would already be expecting from F AC from
your dues paying. So you want to tailor those missions and help
create the agenda that's most important and the priorities for Collier
County, that done with the senior staff and with the members of the
commISSIon.
I might parenthetically note that there were a couple of questions
here earlier -- and one of the advantages of batting cleanup, gives me
an opportunity to comment on those. And I apologize to both Cari
and Keith for having that advantage, but I'm going to take advantage
of it anyway, and it would be this:
There are times when you will not necessarily be in step with
F AC. We have had that experience in particular with Pinellas County
in the Article V funding arguments where we found it necessary to
take Pinellas, Hillsborough, Dade, and Orange, and move to a big
county coalition so that the lead negotiators on the implementation of
the new Article V funding would not leave some of the larger counties
with a disproportion share of what they thought they should pay.
So there are times when your priorities may not be as high on the
F AC's list as you would like them to be, or are more important to you
locally, and that would certainly be one of the things that we would try
to help both develop and make sure that we were good advocates for.
As I mentioned, we try to do everything in a team approach. I
think that was an emphasis that both of the preceding speakers made,
particularly in appropriations. They meet at the same time on the
same day at both ends of the hall. You need to make sure you've got
that coverage complete, and there are reasons to be among the
leadership caucuses throughout the 160 members throughout the
legislature, so you want to try and make sure you've got your ears in
multiple places at multiple times so you know what's coming up that
Page 226
September 27,2005
might be unexpected or that may be intended to do harm to you.
I mentioned that we work in teams. We try to make sure that our
team leaders -- in this case it would be our intention that I would be
your team leader -- would not be handling more than five or six major
clients at any given session. And I'll be happy in question and answers
to give you the ones that are currently on my list.
As I mentioned, everyone is available as we need it, but those
team leaders are the priority to that five or six clients to whom they
are most responsible.
And finally, as a part of our approach, communications is
important. We will tailor design the communication link, but at the
very least, I think you should be expecting from us, either through
your administrator or your county attorney or whatever your
communication link is by preference, that at least weekly during the
legislative session, you are getting a full package of bills and bill
status by title on things that we have identified.
Now, for all of the senior members that are a part of our
legislative governmental affairs unit, myself included, is I am reading
every bill as it's filed by title at the very least, and creating anything
that has from your -- from our dialogue -- and some of it's obvious if it
relates to local government. We're putting that on a tracking list for
you.
Now, you may be doing that internally, and some of our clients
already do do that, but we're doing that as a function and are prepared
to share that with you and do it on a regular basis.
The other thing that we particularly do when you have a lot of
balls in the area during legislative session that you care about, is we
would recommend that there be a periodic conference call usually
once a week, also to keep current on those things, and then, of course,
e-mails on a daily basis or an hourly basis, particularly in the last
couple of weeks of the session. Regular reporting is the bottom line
there, and it's very important.
Page 227
September 27, 2005
What assets does Pennington bring to Collier County that you
might not otherwise find or that may not be in quite the same
dimension? Let me try to categorize them generally this way. We
know this process among this team. We know how it works, we know
the people in it, and particularly when we're dealing with funding,
there are a number of procedural steps that will either have it fall out
in the legislative process or when it gets to Governor Bush's desk, it
will not survive his veto pen.
What the next governor will be like, I can't speak to you, but he
has been very aggressive in that regard.
I think we know the people and the staff that support them in
both Houses, in both parties, at both ends of the hall, as well as
knowing your own legislative delegation, working with them well and
knowing them well. But for you, you know them well, too.
You may not know Joe Negron in Martin County or the next
appropriations committee chairman in the House who happens to be
from St. Lucy County, and that's representative Stan Mayfield, but it's
our business to try to do that for you and to anticipate who those
people are going to be.
And then there is the intangible of why they want to interface
with us and why they want to deal with it. Part of what we do -- and
it's a necessity of the process -- is we are very involved in campaigns.
We send teams our to walk door to door for candidates, we consult
with them, and we provide financial resources for them.
In this next giving cycle that will conclude in the November
elections of 2006, individually and through our firm clients, we'll
move almost $2 million, and that's particularly important with Eight is
Enough.
As my time runs short, there is a very important element that I
want to conclude with, and it is, be innovative and be creative. And
I'm kind of hoping, Commissioner Henning, you will ask me about
writing laws, because that would have been my cleanup if I had not
Page 228
---,-~~,,_._----.,'_., .",.......-"~"-
September 27,2005
run out of time in doing it.
But two things that you want to be aware of. The storm damage
that has occurred both in '04 and '05 is giving us a sales tax surplus.
There will be some money there for innovative pots of nonrecurring
funds and potential.
And the other is, we talked about the impact fee commission.
And one of our clients asked if we could help -- which is really direct
part of our lobbying effort -- to see if we could not help him be a
member of one of those commissions, and so we did go to Speaker
Bense, and he did selected Commissioner Stewart from Pinellas
County to be a member of that commission.
So it's that type of creativity that we would like to offer to you, I
apologize for going over my time, and thank you for letting me have
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have a number of questions.
I've read the information that you provided to us, and I'm concerned
that I'm not sure how we would fit into the equation -- first of all, how
many counties do you represent?
MR. DUNBAR: Three, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Three. Okay. And can you tell me
what counties they are?
MR. DUNBAR: Pinellas, Dade, and V olusia, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. DUNBAR: And again, I can look at the list. I knew you
might have a series of questions, and I tried to open my client list so
I'd be able to respond. Again, in my world, my priority would be to
you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is --
MR. DUNBAR: Yeah, I understand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and the question is, you seem to
Page 229
September 27,2005
represent large metro areas. And I'm trying to figure out how we, as a
mid-sized county, would fit into the equation of being well
represented.
MR. DUNBAR: I don't think size has -- is the issue. I think,
with all due respect, the question would be, if you have priorities give
them to me and let me implement them. It doesn't make any
difference, big or small.
We have previously done work for Walton County, which has
similar issues, probably smaller than you are. We have been brought
on board to help with Sumter County. We have done those in
specialized times. They do not have the resources to maintain
full-time presence in Tallahassee and don't. But when they needed us,
they came to us, and we provided them with the resources that they
needed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. When I look at the list of
clients that you presently represent -- and you only represent three
counties, as you stated -- I'm concerned that there'd be a tremendous
conflict here when I look at Florida Association of Realtors, I look at
FPL, I also look at, I think, State Farm Insurance. You represent a lot
of insurance companies. And I'm wondering if some of these
enterprises, if there would be a conflict.
MR. DUNBAR: Actually, Commissioner, we definitely do
represent those, and proudly so. I am not aware of any prior conflicts
with any local government issues for the ones you named. There are
two on there, however, where I do anticipate a conflict could arise.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what are those, sir?
MR. DUNBAR: And one would be BJ. Allen Company, which
is a retail provider of fireworks, and that is an issue between local
governments, both cities and counties at this point. I'm not -- as far as
-- I'm not aware any of pre- filed legislation at the moment, but I do
think that is a potential one.
And the other one there that I think in the past, although not
Page 230
September 27,2005
recently, has been an issue is Florida Outdoor Advertising
Association. In looking it over, those -- and we tried, in response to
your RFP, to identify where those might occur. And those were the
only two that we could identify.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't mean this derogatory, but as
I read the information that was provided to me, I felt that your firm
might be a little on the stuffy side as far as our needs in regards to the
requirements that Collier County is looking for.
And I had some concerns about -- obviously you're very
successful at lobbying because you were able to spend $2 million to
get certain individuals elected in areas, and I want to know a little
more on that background. And how that would benefit our particular
interests here in Collier County.
MR. DUNBAR: Yeah. Commissioner, that's a very good
question, and I'll be happy to answer it. One of the things that we do
for those clients who want to participate financially is to try to
facilitate an understanding of who the candidates are, how they stand
on their issues, and then to try and help coordinate that.
We did stand with Representative Davis as co-host of his
fundraiser in Tallahassee when they were there for committee
hearings. I think Representative Davis, although I don't agree with
him on every issue, is an outstanding member of the legislature.
And so when I was asked to help do that, I had no hesitancy on
calling my clients and going, I think Mike Davis deserves your
support, and many of them did do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And who else did you represent?
Could you give us maybe a list of a couple more that you represented
in regards to lobbying to have them reelected?
MR. DUNBAR: Actually, most of the sitting members of the
legislature we have supported in one way or another.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. DUNBAR: That's my job. My job is to make sure I'm
Page 23 1
September 27,2005
effective and I pick winners. And we -- I think with rare exception we
don't do very -- we don't miss very often.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm surprised that lobbyists would
get involved in the political portion of this as far as getting people
reelected. I would think that you would want to be involved in the
interests of the particular people that you represent in assisting them,
such as Collier County, to make sure that the funding is -- you know,
gets back here to where it belongs.
MR. DUNBAR: Absolutely, Commissioner. And when I walk
into a member of a legislator's office and I have four or five clients
that I deal with and they look at me and they go, that's the guy who
helped me raise money, it doesn't make any difference if I happen to
be asking for one of my several clients who make no contributions,
they still know that they have to deal with that intangible element, and
I think it does provide a benefit to Collier County.
And if you think that there isn't a lot of money that flows through
this process, let me just pause and simply say that the incumbent
Republican leader to be speaker next will maintain a leadership fund
to help his members get elected of over $10 million. And in the
democratic party, I think that Dan Gelber will probably raise at least
$4 million.
That is -- like it or not, it is how the process works, and we do
participate in it aggressively because I want them to know that my
people care and my clients care, and I want you to -- not to point my
finger at you, but I -- and I do. And we do other things. I mean, I
have taken a leave of absence from my firm on more than one
occasion to run a statewide race for governor, and one of your sitting
House members happened to be my staff when I made that race.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So could I make an assumption that
this is kind of the good-old-boy policy?
MR. DUNBAR: With Eight is Enough, there is no good-old-boy
policy. It's good new boy or good new gal policy, and you better find
Page 232
September 27,2005
the good ones as they come out. And I had someone in my office
yesterday before I came down here who I think will take a vacant seat
out of Miami.
I happened to meet him when he was a deputy general counsel in
Governor Bush's office, and I -- you try to recruit them ahead of time.
You really do need to do that to stay ahead of the curve. If you do not
stay ahead of the curve, the curve will stay ahead of you in my
judgment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's your feeling on how you
would vote on the growth issues and impact fees that are now facing
the 67 counties here in Florida?
MR. DUNBAR: I will be a voice for my client on where they
want me to be. I have no preconceived notion there, although I have a
pretty strong feeling on where I know you would be, and I also think I
know where my current client, Commissioner Stewart, will be.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you also represent the Board
of Realtors, I believe, so I'm --
MR. DUNBAR: Yes. Actually Gene Adams from our office is
-- actually this is not a Realtor's issue. This is really a Florida home
builders issue. They're the ones that drive this issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, they're also involved in the
equation, too.
MR. DUNBAR: We -- but we do do work for the Florida
Association of Realtors. Gene Adams is formerly the executive
director there. He has been retained under contract. His primary
responsibility for them is to make sure that the affordable housing
program stays afloat and alive.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll turn this over to somebody else.
I don't want to take all night.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, I think you answered that --
Page 233
September 27,2005
those questions eloquently. The only way that you're going to get in a
door of a legislator, I think, is what you're doing. By making sure --
by telling them that we want you in Tallahassee because we think that
you're a good lawmaker.
Your application, I find, was easy to follow; it had nice flow. If
you want me to ask the question -- you've already answered it in your
application, in how much involvement you had in bill writing and
getting bills passed.
The only -- just a clarification. On the proposed cost is 5,000 a
month. And it says, not to exceed 6,000 a year, and I think it should
say 60,000?
MR. DUNBAR: Probably should, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's what that means.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for pointing that out,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. That says reimbursable fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually I don't have it in front
of me but--
,
MR. MUDD: That's reimbursable. They -- basically it's 5,000 a
year times 12 gives, that gives you your 60 plus 6,000 in reimbursable.
All the candidates go anywhere from $65,000 to $72,000. So the cost
ratio between the three --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But this is the only proposal that we
have that put a cap on the reimbursable--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- expenses, which is impressive. Good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You know, I've been
following the others, and I was wrong to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you did it right and -- oh,
well.
Do you want me to ask the question about the --
Page 234
September 27, 2005
MR. DUNBAR: Well, I want to just point out two creative
things, which may be applicable because I think they will be -- there
are some things that I believe are very unique about Collier County, its
base, its gross, its population.
And just by example, when we were facing a situation
legislatively about a bridge in Clearwater, we changed the law to
create a different definition for obsolescence. And today, they opened
last month, a $14 million bridge.
I think there is great opportunity working with the water
management districts, and we've had great success out of the Tampa
Bay area. We have built a desow (phonetic) plant, an above ground
reservoir, created a recyclable distribution water systems. This year
we came home with $4 million of downstream augmentation as a
resource. Those are unique opportunities.
I am sure they are here in Collier County. I may not know what
they are as I stand here today, but with your help I can find them, and
then I think we can find creative solutions that will make you different
than the others, and we'll -- I think we can convince the legislature to
invest in those opportunities because they will be the example of how
to do things right. Because there are lots of good things that go on
down here in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're absolutely right, we
shouldn't be following F AC's tail on issues. We know where they're
going to stand on impact fees, and we know where they're going to
stand on bill 360.
And I know it's very important to us, but our focus should be
getting the funds, and we need, in my opinion, a lobbyist's help to do
that and not to help us lobby our delegation, like has been done in the
past, or help us -- what we need lobbyists for is to help assist our
delegation to make things happen because they are really working for
us. Thank you.
MR. DUNBAR: Thank you, Commissioner.
Page 235
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, you don't have
anything to say, do you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Has anyone in your firm ever
lived or worked in Collier County?
MR. DUNBAR: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And will it be difficult for
you, if you were the one chosen, to get up to speed with issues that we
have?
MR. DUNBAR: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, there. Is that good?
MR. DUNBAR: And by the way, I may have been a little -- I
meant to make this comment earlier. We have a lot of local
government experience. I am a former county attorney. I mean, I
understand local government work, so actually --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's good. Thank you, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, sir.
MR. DUNBAR: Mr. Chairman, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Appreciate it.
MR. DUNBAR: Members of the commission, thank you very
much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, if you would -- and we're going to
take a break. I can watch her fingers and they're slowing down.
I would ask you to take those grade sheets in front of you and
mark the firms. The first firm, the one that you prefer, mark it with a
one, the person that comes in second gets a two, and the last firm gets
a three. I will take those sheets from you, I will compile them at
break, and then I will put them on the overhead, and then we'll
continue this discussion.
MR. WEIGEL: And Mr. Chair, I would add, make sure that each
of your sheets are either initialed or have your name on them so they
have individual identification.
MR. MUDD: They do have their names on them.
Page 236
September 27,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: And, in essence, what you'll be doing is tabling
this item and then bringing it back off the table afterwards. You take a
motion to table after you have performed your function of --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can do this in 10 minutes, I
presume?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to take a--
10-minute break be okay for you? Then we're going to break for
dinner pretty shortly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you take these now while we're
gone?
MR. MUDD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll be back at 6:10.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
Deb, did you give those back to the commissioners?
MS. WIGHT: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, the first thing I'd ask
you to do is make sure that we've got your scores on the page correct,
and I think we do. I went down each one and we double checked it a
couple of times, so you should see your numbers exactly like you have
on your code sheet.
What I did after that was over is basically go across the row, add
the priority numbers up, and that's when you get low number wins at
the end, okay? Bryant, Miller & Olive, practicing attorneys, came in
at 12. That was the high number, so if you went with that particular
one, they came in third. Keith Arnold & Associates came -- had a
score of -- composite of 10. That puts them in second place. And
Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, practicing attorneys,
Page 237
September 27,2005
basically had the low score at eight, and they had three one votes from
commISSIoners.
I did that as a way to get -- to at least show you how it turned out
as far as the priorities are concerned. You do have three one votes,
and there is a majority in that particular item. We'll open it up for
discussion, but I believe you have, based on motion and second, you
probably have a majority vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think -- I think the only fair way is to
proceed with the results of this voting. I think if we were to debate it
now and try to change people's minds it would be somewhat unfair. I
think we to have go with the numbers.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would like to say one thing. The two,
maybe three most important issues facing Collier County are growth
management impact fees and cost shifts, like Medicaid, to our
communities.
And so if Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar are
going to be the selection, I'm merely saying to you that I preferred
Keith Arnold because of his commitment on those issues and his
passion to stop things that he thinks are unjust for the counties that he
represents, and I would hope that you would -- would have a little bit
of that passion and see if we can't reverse the trend that seems to have
been started in Tallahassee, so -- Commissioner Coletta has something
he wants to say.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm so sorry to interrupt you. I
think it's the lateness of the hour. I totally got the score backwards. I
took three as the high number and one as the low number. And I don't
know what to do or what to tell you now, but --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's too late now. We've already rung
them up. You start changing your numbers, we're going to start
changing our numbers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm telling you where I am
Page 238
September 27,2005
with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The highest number as having
the highest value.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't know what to do with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So actually one was Keith Arnold?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One was Keith Arnold for sure.
I had no doubts about that at all. And then three would have been
where the one was. I don't know why I can't reserve the right to have
that changed to the correct matter. I mean, we're after six clock.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He should be able to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to change mine then.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you can.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why not?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can have a second vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, this is not nice.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It isn't nice, but I'm telling you
right now that the value that was put on that, I misunderstood what it
was until I looked at it and I was trying to figure out why some other
commissioners were in the same range as I was when they seemed to
be very positive, and it took me a minute to figure it out. But I figured
three is the high value.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, can you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We haven't taken a vote.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. If you're looking, I'd like to respond or
interj ect, if I can.
You're in a deliberative process, and the process of using kind of
a blind scoring thing and then bringing it back for discussion is
certainly appropriate. You haven't taken a motion, you haven't had a
vote. You're still technically in your deliberative process. There's
nothing that binds you to what you've already discussed or written
down up to this point in time.
Page 239
September 27,2005
So you have the freedom of still making a motion and vote or
arguing and discussing changes -- I don't mean arguing, but discussing
and implementing changes. Because ultimately it's going to take a
vote to approve something, and anyone of you can make a motion and
anyone of you can vote for or against anything.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning has
something to say about this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We -- isn't this a competitive bid
process? And we are sitting as people, just like some of our staff
members when they rank consultants, contractors, and the like. And I
thought that was our process. And I think there's a certain law on that,
'f '
I we re --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, there is law on competitive bid process.
But you're in a selection process, and you can impose rules on
yourselves. But to the extent that there is mistake or error, I'd be hard
pressed to say that you don't have the ability to correct the record, and
then the other commissioners can take that indication as they wish to.
Ultimately, here the scoring, whether the lowest score is the
highest, is the best selection or the reverse, it's a motion and vote type
of thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know that we dealt with this
in the past where some of the members of the selection committee or
the recommendation committee, because there was misunderstanding
by some, you had to throw it out and do the whole process over, and I
think we've dealt with this several times before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The whole process doesn't have
to be done over. The only -- we heard the testimony. I know where
my feelings go and how I would vote. It's a misunderstanding how the
scoring system went. It just clarified when it got laid on the screen.
And because of that, I think I got the right to be able to change my
score to what it actually reflects. This does not reflect my opinion.
Page 240
September 27,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How do the other commissioners
feel about this?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I feel he should have the right to
change his vote --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So do I.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- because of a misunderstanding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So do I.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. There it is.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to need a motion and a
second and a vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who wants to make the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll make the motion. I'll
make the motion that we approve Keith Arnold & Associates as our
choice of firms.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning is opposed. It
passes 4-1.
I apologize --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I apologize.
Page 241
September 27,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I apologize to the applicants for the
confusion. It's not the way we like to do business, but it was an honest
error. Sorry.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, we're going to break for
lunch. You want to do it right now before we start another item?
MR. MUDD: Let's do one that's really easy, okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's pick one that's real easy.
Item #7B
V A-2005-AR-7444: TERRY & CHARLOTTE RHODES,
REPRESENTED BY MCGARVEY CUSTOM HOMES, REQUEST
A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE EAST SIDE YARD FROM THE
REQUIRED 30-FOOT SETBACK OF THE RURAL
AGRICUL TURAL MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONING (A-
MHO) DISTRICT, TO 21. I-FEET TO AUTHORIZE
REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING POOL FENCE WITH A
PROPOSED SCREEN ENCLOSURE. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS
LOCATED AT 11230 FIVE OAKS LANE, FURTHER DESCRIBED
AS TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, LOT 64, BLOCK E.
TWIN EAGLES SUBDIVISION PHASE I, PLAT BOOK 30 PAGE
78 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - CONTINUED TO OCTOBER
11. 2005 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The petitioner for 7B had to leave, and she -- and
she is asking that this item be continued until the next meeting, and I
need a vote from the board to make that happen.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 7B?
MR. MUDD: 7B, sir.
Page 242
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Fiala to approve
MS. FILSON: To continue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- continuance of7B.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #7C
RESOLUTION 2005-341: CU-04-AR-6700 A RESOLUTION OF
THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF TWO CONDITIONAL USES IN THE "E"
ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR A GROUP HOME, AND
PRIVATE SCHOOL TO SERVE THE RESIDENTS OF THE
GROUP HOME, AND PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS PER TABLE 2,
SUBSECTION 2.04.03 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN
SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY. FLORIDA - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And 7C should be real easy, that's
the 1 7 A. And I've already talked about that. I pulled that off of the
summary agenda. The reason I pulled it off is because --
MS. FILSON: Which number are you on, Commissioner?
MR. MUDD: 17 A, it moved to 7C. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Page 243
September 27,2005
commission members.
It's conditional use 04-AR-6700, a resolution of the Board of
Zoning Appeals providing for the establishment of two conditional
uses in the "E" Estates zoning district for a group -- for a group home
and private school to serve the residents of the group home and
program participants per table two, subsection 2.04.03 of the Collier
County Land Development Code for property located in Section 8,
Township 50 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
Commissioner Fiala asked for it to be pulled.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I asked for it to be pulled because it
would be -- they've said in the body of this that there was going to be
chain link -- a six-foot-tall chain link fence around the property, and I
just felt that a chain link fence, which is something we're trying to shy
away from anyway, does not belong in this neighborhood. And I've
spoken to the representative for the petitioner. And do you have some
news for me?
MS. SMITH: I do. Good evening. My name's Kelly Smith. I'm
with --
MR. MUDD: Got to swear in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Everyone who is going to have--
provide testimony in this hearing must stand to be sworn.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. MUDD: Any ex parte on these items, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners have any ex parte?
We'll start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nothing for him.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I called Bob Murray last night,
I've spoken to the petitioner representative today, and left a message
Page 244
September 27,2005
for Jim Mudd overnight.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And no ex parte disclosure for me.
How about Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 17 A, I have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no disclosure on 17 A.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's go.
MS. SMITH: My name's Kelly Smith. I'm with Davidson
Engineering representing Eden Florida School for the requested
conditional use.
As Commissioner Fiala mentioned, we did discuss her concern
over the fence material, and I have discussed that with our
representative from Eden Florida, who's here today.
I certainly can appreciate your concern over the aesthetics and
agree that chain link is not an attract -- the most attractive fence
material; however, there is always an element of cost in that issue.
The subject property is 9.6 acres and has a total linear feet of
approximately 3,200. And so they've received a current estimate for
chain link fence around the property, and that estimate came in at
$30,000. So certainly a wood or a PVC fence would increase that cost
significantly.
What we'd like to ask is that the fence along the front and along
the first 25 feet of the side yards be a non-chain link or -- so in other
words, a wood or a PVC type of material, and that the remainder of
the fence around the property be permitted to be chain link, and that
way the fence from the street is aesthetically pleasing, and around the
rest of the property is consistent with what you would find at a school
facility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you be using something like
a green chain link and maybe planting some kind of vines or
something in there to -- along the rest of it to even soften it more?
MS. SMITH: There is --
Page 245
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That shouldn't be too expensive to
do.
MS. SMITH: Right. And there is a landscape buffer that would
be with -- you know, on all three of those sides.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but the landscape buffers are
pretty, pretty --
MR. MUDD: Sparse.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. That's the word I'm
searching for. Whereas, if you could get some kind of vines, which
are not very expensive, and you can plant them along the fence, they'll
grow up and they'll cover it, and it won't look so much like an
institution or a prison --
MS. SMITH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- quite frankly.
MS. SMITH: That would be fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So the front and two sides,
you'll be planting -- or you'll be making it a nice fence material. The
rest of it you'll be making green chain link and planting some vines
and things around it?
MS. SMITH: Correct. And if I could just clarify, the proposal
was for the first 25 feet of the side yard, so going from the front up
that 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And all along the front of it facing
the street?
MS. SMITH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I'm satisfied with that. I'll
make a motion to approve with these provisions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas.
Page 246
September 27,2005
Commissioner Henning has a question or comment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Ifwe can get some of these
residents out of here, make it apriority, I would appreciate it.
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.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, may I just interject one thing?
You just continued 7B prior to this item. I did have one speaker, and I
don't want her to sit here all night if she's still here, Diane Gargulio.
Okay.
MR. MUDD: She's the one that asked for the petition to be
continued.
MS. FILSON: Oh, okay. Then that's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Now, how many citizens do we have here and which items are
you waiting for?
Item #101
A FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
MAUREEN MORAN. INC. - APPROVED
MS. SAVAGE: 101.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 10I?
MR. MUDD: 101 is the --
Page 247
September 27, 2005
MS. FILSON: That's the one I have the most speakers for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers do you have?
MS. FILSON: Five.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's 16B2?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. 101 is old 16B2, and that had to do with
the -- with the small change to contract from Maureen Moran, the
development at the base of the bridge just before you get to Goodland
and make that left turn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 16B2, was it?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MS. FILSON: It's moved to 101. You have it in your book under
101.
MR. MUDD: 101. It's a recommendation to approve a first
amendment to lease agreement with Maureen Moran, Inc., and
Commissioner Fiala moved it forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This one I want to hear about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to do it before or after dinner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we've got five people sitting
here plus -- let's -- you want to hear it after dinner, okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a 30-minute break
for dinner pretty quickly, so if you can get through this, we'll break
after dinner -- I mean, we'll break after this one.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what happened -- oh, it was about
a year and a half ago --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can't tell.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: After dinner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go eat first, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to lunch.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're taking 30 minutes for dinner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't want to deal with us now.
Page 248
September 27, 2005
(A recess was taken for dinner.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike, plus you have a quorum.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we have four commissioners, so
we have a quorum.
Commissioners, I'm going to try to get through things as I
quickly as possible. I'd like to get out of here at 8:30, no later than
8:30. And we're going to try to get the land use decisions out of here,
but we're going to try to take care of the citizens who have been
waiting for such a long time today.
And anything that is left is going to get postponed. It's going to
get continued to the next meeting, okay? We're not running this thing
all night long.
So I would encourage everybody to get to the point, don't spend a
lot of time talking, and let's get our business done.
Okay. So where -- we were going to 101.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And that has --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's 16B2.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right.
MR. MUDD: That's a recommendation to approve a first
amendment to lease agreement with Maureen Moran, Inc., and that
item was moved at Commissioner Fiala's request.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before you do anything, Commissioner
Fiala wanted it moved. Let's find out what her problem is, get it
resolved and get it done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the number?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 101. It's previously--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's 16B2.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- 16B2.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I had some constituents
Page 249
September 27,2005
call me and ask me to pull it, and that's why I did.
MR. FEDER: And Mr. Chairman, the only thing I'll note for the
record, very briefly is we've had a lease since 1997. The only thing
this does is makes it very clear that that space, of the use of that area
underneath the bridge for parking, for additional parking cannot be
used in any calculation for density either in Collier County or City of
Marco Island's development processes, wanted to get that on the
record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, do we have anybody here
from the other side?
MS. FILSON: I have five speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have five speakers. The five
speakers -- who are the five speakers? Please raise your hand. Okay.
One, two, three, four. Do I see four?
Now, are all of you speaking from the same position, or are you
on opposing positions? Okay. All right. I understand. So we're split,
okay. Let's start with the first two speakers.
MS. FILSON: Herb Savage. He'll be followed by James
Graham.
MR. SAVAGE: Good morning. Oops, excuse me. I'm sorry.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No singing.
MR. SAVAGE: Since nine o'clock this morning, you know. I've
forgotten now why I came here. But it's been a great day, really has.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We forgot a long time ago why we're
here.
MR. SAVAGE: And I compliment you all very, very much, as
well as this magnificent staff, for what you have to go through and
listen to, and I apologize for my voice being so quiet.
But I want to tell you a little bit about Mr. Lydon, who has
Moran's Barge, as they always called it. He bought it several years
ago. And I tell everyone this, that was a junkyard in those days,
Page 250
September 27, 2005
whether whoever put the trash and all that sort of thing doesn't matter.
But he took 42 dumpster loads off of that little site where this Moran's
Barge space is and now where the bridge is and where the project is
located. And I admired him for that.
And during this project, I think he spent about a quarter of a
million dollars on bringing a lift station down through the sewage to
take care of their particular installation. I'm not sure of the exact
dollars.
But I tell you this, I plead with you to approve this very minor
thing, in my view, in the fact, as was mentioned, it's not going to be a
part of the zoning or whatever you want to call it. The building has
been designed, and we have the parking on two levels in the building,
and we don't have any problems.
But I just plead with you to approve that lease, the renewable
lease. And I'll just answer any question if I can, but otherwise, thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning has his light on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not for a question. I want to
wait for the public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When does the lease expire now?
MR. SAVAGE: I'm not familiar with the time of the lease. I
think it was October.
MR. MUDD: I think it's 2007.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's still in effect for a couple
years?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's just an amendment to the lease.
We have to get you on the microphone, okay, That's all right.
Okay. Thank you very much, Herb. I appreciate it.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is James Graham. He'll be
followed by Connie Fullmer.
Page 251
September 27, 2005
MR. GRAHAM: My name is James Graham, and I live in
Goodland. And I'm a member of the Preservation Coalition, and I'll
just speak -- I just would like to give you my opinion.
And -- hi, Commissioners. It's been a wonderful day actually. I
actually enjoyed it myself, personally. Anyways--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I wish I had.
MR. GRAHAM: -- I am standing up here because of this -- this
lease agreement. According to this here, it's the first one that -- the
first lease agreement added to it. I guess that's what it means here,
because I'm not too -- I don't understand this this much.
But I do know this, it's like -- it's like what you don't see, you
know what I'm saying? It's like what you don't see. You know, the
invisible man, you don't see him, but you know he's there. And I think
there's a lot here behind the scenes, like I'm trying to -- I know there's
letters here, but I'm trying to read the white part, if you know what I
mean.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In between the lines.
MR. GRAHAM: And what I see -- this is what I see with this.
First of all, I see in the future, if you guys are -- first of all, I'm
opposed to it, not because it's not good. A lot of work ain't been done.
I'm opposed to it because I see in the future that the developer
can take this -- take this amendment and use it to his advantage against
the citizens -- which I am a citizen, I believe -- against the citizens,
and they could be very creative, the way this is put, in the City of
Marco Island.
Because like I heard there a while back, I think today I heard like
the tail wagging the dog, you know what I'm saying.
I know -- what I see is, the developer, the owner, is in the City of
Marco Island. I'm in the county. And you're about to give somebody
that has really, and I believe -- I could be wrong, but really doesn't
today have loyalty to the county -- has more loyalty to the city, than it
would to the county.
Page 252
September 27, 2005
This is my belief, because they had an opportunity to stay in the
county, but they chose to go to the city, because I believe, what you
don't see, is they can have -- they have more influence there than they
do here in the county because of the stature of the five that I see here.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is, the lease agreement, it's up --
I just understand it's in '7. They have that. I understand over the
period of time hearing what I hear -- maybe it's a rumor -- there are a
lot of violations with this thing here.
This is -- can probably be proven, probably can't, but I'm not up
to that right now.
But I do believe that -- how I can say this? What's the purpose of
giving them or for them having today -- not what happened yesterday.
We're talking about today, today, you know. What's the purpose of
them having a lease of this piece of property that belongs to the
county, that belongs to the citizens and belongs to everybody, you
know? And--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, sir.
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you. You're welcome.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Connie Fullmer. She'll be
followed by Greg Bello.
MS. FULLMER: Craig's not here.
MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by Thomas Lydon.
MS. FULLMER: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. I'm
Connie Fullmer, president of the Goodland Preservation Coalition and
resident of Goodland.
I put on the overhead -- we all know where Goodland is and the
Goodland bridge. But, again, to point out where Moran's Marina is.
Way over -- over here, and here's Goodland.
The developer, Mr. Lydon, approached the Marco City Council a
few years ago to build a -- to change his use of the property. What he
currently has there is a marina and restaurant and little motel, and he
wants to tear all that down and build a high-rise hotel condo
Page 253
September 27,2005
development, marina, and restaurant. And the -- at the time he needed
the parking under the bridge to fulfill his parking requirements.
But over the past several years, Mr. Lydon, the owner and
developer for this subject property, has received favorable density and
zoning changes for his land to allow for his large hotel, restaurant,
marina proj ect.
Marco City Council amended their comprehensive plan to
change the developer's land zoning from conservation preservation to
C-4, as well, they increased his density from 12 to 26 units per acre,
they grandfathered the hotel room sizes so he could build 1,700 to
3,200 square-foot rooms for the hotel.
But in August of 2004, Marco City Council finally said, whoa,
they'd granted him many privileges, but now they said whoa, because
the developer submitted a site plan that would require multiple
variances in addition to the increased density and change in zoning.
The council told the developer, Mr. Lydon, that they believed
something very nice could be built at the foot of the Goodland bridge
without variances and guided the developer to go back to the drawing
board to submit a site plan that would utilize all the benefits bestowed
upon him and make the project fit on his land. So that's the issue
today, does the project fit on the land?
The developer did go back and created a new site plan and
submitted it to Marco City. And just this summer the Marco city
planner approved that new site plan. The new plan shows that all their
parking requirements for his proj ect, for the hotel, the restaurant, the
marina would be accomplished without using the land under the
bridge.
And I show you a letter, the second page of a letter from Jerry
Neal from Hole Montes, and he says in this letter regarding the
parking, he says -- he talks about the change in the parking for the
building using only two floors for parking, and then he talks about
additional parking outside the building, but he thirdly says there is no
Page 254
September 27, 2005
parking under the bridge. They do not need parking under the bridge.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Thomas Lydon.
MS. FULLMER: Thank you.
MR. LYDON: Good evening, Commissioners. My name's Tom
Lydon. Resident of Collier County since 1989. I've operated Moran's
barge, marina, motel, restaurant, for the last 13 years.
I'm not here really to refute a lot of misstatements because I
know time is rather precious at this stage of the day. I know that you
folks have examined this matter, and I feel that when this lease was
originally cancelled, or that was contemplated and notice was served
on me, that that was done on the basis of less than accurate
information.
I'll only capsulize it by saying that at no time whatsoever did we
present a program that would increase our density by using those 18
spots underneath the bridge, which we have used for the last seven
years. Well, it's actually eight years now.
And according to your representative, Mr. Dowling, I've always
been considered a model tenant. That area there is used by people in
the area that fish off our docks out there, that berth boats there and use
that for parking, come in and dine, et cetera, et cetera.
We technically do not have to have it for our matrix as far as our
density goes, but on the other hand, we've maintained it and wish to
continue to maintain it in a very, very orderly fashion and attractive
fashion. It's really our intent to include in our plan additional
landscaping with the permission of the county, et cetera, which we
already intend doing on the median and the abutment in that area of
the proj ect that lies within Marco Island.
So what I would ask you to do is to please consider continuing
our lease because we have not in any way done anything, I think,
that's violated that lease.
If any of you commissioners have a question of me now, I'm be
Page 255
September 27,2005
happy to answer it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning was first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for our staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one. I find that I'm so confused
about all of this. When -- whether you had a lease or not, people
would park there, right? And they would probably use your facilities,
I would guess. Because, you know, anybody in the county can park
there and it's available to them.
So I don't even see the importance of the lease. I mean, if it's
only for county residents to park to use it, I don't know what we need
a lease for anyway, and that's what confuses me. Why is it so
important, two different sides pulling against each other when nobody
really wants the parking, then I don't understand.
MR. LYDON: Well, one of the reasons that I was happy to
obtain a lease was because there was a security problem. We had
people parking there overnight. There was a litter problem. There
were people congregating there and partying over weekends in
particular.
And when it came under our jurisdiction, we put out utensils in
order to contain the litter that had accumulated. We -- we prevented
people in a sense from coming in there and camping overnight.
In fact, when I was under construction with the restaurant, I had
shots fired. That's a matter of record. It's in the police department
blotter.
So I think it served ourselves and the county to have somebody,
if for no other reason, in the custodial capacity there to supervise that
property. It's very, very difficult to do that just in a passing-by sense,
whether it be the police department, sheriffs office, et cetera.
Actually having that facility there to park, we have caused stops.
There's a safety factor. There's entry. It's marked. We're required by
the terms of our lease to keep it lighted, which had not been the case
Page 256
September 27, 2005
in the past.
So, you know, I think it was a mutually advantageous situation
for the city to see fit to issue it, a lease for us --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The county?
MR. LYDON: -- and for overflow parking in the season in
particular when people would be in need of parking, rather than
parking out on 92A or 92.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And Mr. Mudd, is it
advantageous to us to have him maintain that, or is there any reason
for us to continue the lease?
MR. MUDD: I'll leave that to Mr. Feder, because it's his money
and it's his right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
~R. FEDER: In answer to both questions, yes. It's
advantageous as for the items noted because it's kept clean, those
Issues.
And basically the lease was a 10-year lease. There's an issue
raised. We considered stopping the lease. And it was brought to our
attention the concern was just that it might be used to increase density
of development, and that's why we're amending the lease to make sure
that that is not the case.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it's important to you for what
reason, because you like to maintain it or --
MR. LYDON: Well, I think, number one, you know, we have
the aesthetics that I just mentioned and we have the hygiene factor.
We have trespassing, camping, that would take place on a county
property underneath the bridge. It could lead to a lot of things.
I mean, I'm not professing to be a police officer down there, but I
think the very fact that you're running a business, contingencies being
what they are, that -- and it is contiguous to the property, that it kind
of goes hand in hand that we enjoy keeping that as attractive as we
possibly can.
Page 257
September 27, 2005
And as I said, in consultation with the county authorities, we
would like to even embellish upon that. And then, of course, January,
February, parking's a premium down there. I mean, you take
occasions, whether it be a function down in the Goodland area, even
the boat parade and so on. It gets rather difficult and tight to get any
parking spots.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Lydon.
MR. LYDON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have questions for staff.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Lydon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. LYDON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't -- I don't assume that this
is the whole lease agreement.
MR. FEDER: No, it is not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just an addendum to it,
correct?
MR. FEDER: That is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remember when this issue
came up, Connie Fullmer brought it up to us, that we gave direction
we don't want to continue this lease.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We gave -- we wrote a letter to Mr.
Lydon and his folks, and it had to do with that big building that
Connie put up on the overhead.
And there was -- at the time the way Marco Island was looking at
it, those parking spaces underneath the bridge could be used for
density and for a bigger building the way they saw it, as long as it was
a long-term lease. And this -- and this has some extensions to it. It's
10 years, but I believe it's got two 10-year extensions.
Page 258
September 27,2005
MR. FEDER: Ten-year extension possibly.
MR. MUDD: So it was important at the time when it came
forward, when Ms. Fullmer brought it forward with the folks from
Goodland that asked the board at the time -- it was a public petition --
to basically cease this so that we could stop that from happening,
because we mentioned it to the Marco Island planning group, and they
just kind of ignored it.
Board's direction was to preclude that from happening, to give
them a notice that you weren't -- we weren't -- you weren't going to
extend their lease past 2007, and that letter was written.
After that was done, Mr. Lydon and his attorney asked for a
meeting. They came forward and said, if that's the issue, we will
change the agreement so that we will preclude that from ever
happening again, from being used.
I've had Marco planners look at it, I've had our attorney staff look
at it, their attorney staff look at it. If it pleases this board, that they
would like to amend that agreement, fine. If you don't do an
amendment they still have -- they still have their letter, basically says
that their agreement stops in 2007.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me clarify the issue here. We're not
talking about extending a lease. They have a lease. If we did nothing
tonight, they would still have that lease until November of 2007.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The only thing you're doing, we are
doing tonight, is putting more restrictions on them.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not giving them any additional
privileges. We're putting restrictions on them. And that's all we're
considering tonight.
MR. FEDER: That's the only addendum to make sure that they
can't --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It has nothing to do with the term of the
Page 259
September 27,2005
lease. As far as we are concerned, the lease expires 2007 whether we
put this addendum on it or not, right?
MR. FEDER: And the addendum recognizes that all other
provisions of the lease remaining in effect, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if I can finish, Commissioner
Coyle.
So it's your understanding the board's wishes is still not to
continue the lease; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: And that issue will come up after November of
2007. There is a provision for two possible extensions of 10 years.
That would have to be approved by the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I can see where you're
saying the property does not fulfill any development requirements
under Marco Island's code or the Board of Commissioners' code. And
I understand that, but maybe we can avoid these issues that these good
people came down a long way if there was more communication with
the commissioner of the district so this wouldn't happen.
MR. FEDER: I thought there was, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let me make a motion then. Let
me make a motion that the lease still is in effect until 2007, but we're
adding this addendum just to wrap it up and tie it up a little bit more,
and then in October of 2007, we'll bring it back to see -- it's actually
supposed to expire in November 2007.
We can address it again if we want to extend that. As you said,
it's a proviso in there right now. But we do have the letter on file that
says we're ending the lease. I don't even see a reason to keep it, but
okay, fine.
So my motion is to add this to the lease, this addendum to the
lease, which then expires in November of 2007.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
Page 260
September 27,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve, second by Commissioner Halas.
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.
Okay. Where do we go from here?
Item #8A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2005-342: PUDZ-2005-AR-7469
RICHARD AND FRANCES CRAIG AND CDN PROPERTIES,
LLC, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT MULHERE OF RW A, INC.,
IN REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE RURAL
AGRICULTURAL "A" ZONING DISTRICT TO THE MIXED USE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT "MPUD" ZONING DISTRICT
TO BE KNOWN AS SONOMA OAKS PUD, A MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF A MAXIMUM OF 112
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND 120,000 SQUARE FEET
OF COMMERCIAL USES LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 37.5
ACRES, ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD,
APPROXIMA TEL Y ~ MILE NORTH OF V ANDERBIL T BEACH
ROAD, SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION FAILED - FOR LACK
Page 261
September 27,2005
OF A SUPER-MAJORITY
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to -- unless
there's a lot -- brings us to 8A, and it's the advertised public hearings.
This item--
MS. FILSON: I don't have any speakers on this one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No speakers on this one.
MR. MUDD: This item requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-2005-AR-7469, Richard and Frances Craig and CDN
Properties, LLC, represented by Robert Mulhere ofRW A, Inc., in
requesting a rezone from the rural agricultural "A" zoning district to
the mixed-use planned unit development MPUD zoning district to be
known as Sonoma Oaks PUD, a mixed-use development consisting of
a maximum of 112 residential dwelling units and 120,000 square feet
of commercial uses located on approximately 37.5 acres on the west
side of Collier Boulevard, approximately one quarter mile north of
Vanderbilt Beach Road, Section 34, Township 48 south, Range 26
east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All those who intend to provide
testimony in this hearing, please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ex parte disclosure by commissioners.
We'll start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In my file is an old petition with
this piece of property, but I want to disclose that Bob Mulhere tried to
talk to me. I wouldn't listen. Bruce Anderson and I talked about an
agreement, access agreement, with the neighbor. That's all I have,
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had meetings,
correspondence, e-mails, and calls, I've spoken with Bruce Anderson,
and I've spoken with Bob Mulhere. I've spoken with Susan Murray
Page 262
September 27,2005
and with Jim Mudd.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have spoken with
petitioner, petitioner's representative, I have -- Mr. Anderson, I have
correspondence, e-mails, and telephone calls. They're all in the file if
anybody's interested in seeing them.
Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've had meetings,
correspondence, e-mail, met with the petitioner, petitioner's
representative, and have everything in my file for anyone that wishes
to see it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I spoke to Joe Schmitt, too, excuse
me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've had correspondence, I've had
e-mails,I'vehaddiscussionswithJoe Schmitt and his staff, and I've
also had discussions with the county manager on this issue, and I've
also had discussions with people in the planning commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Bruce Anderson, representing the applicants.
You may recall about a year ago this same property was
scheduled to come before you for a rezone to a business park PUD
with light industrial and retail and office commercial uses.
Because neighboring residents objected to a PUD which allowed
light industrial uses, that business park PUD was never acted on by the
county commission and instead was continued indefinitely while this
new PUD application was prepared and submitted.
It was as a result of input from commissioners and from
neighboring residents and the county's request for a new public
connector road through the property that this project was resubmitted
Page 263
September 27,2005
as a mixed-use PUD with commercial uses fronting along Collier
Boulevard and residential uses behind the commercial.
There is a difference of opinion with your comprehensive
planning staff as to the interpretation and application of the infill
commercial provisions of the growth management plan to this PUD,
but staff does agree that this is a policy decision for the county
commission to make.
As the staff report states, this PUD is comprised of three separate
tax parcels, shown here on the overhead. The southerly parcel
identified as parcel number three here is approximately 9.38 acres and
abuts the commercially zoned and developed Mission Hills PUD.
Comprehensive planning staff agrees that this 9.3-acre parcel clearly
qualifies for commercial infill zoning,
It is when the county transportation development requests a
public connector road to bisect these three parcels that the
comprehensive planning staff and I begin to disagree about how the
commercial infilllanguage ought to be applied to those facts.
The growth management plan prohibits creating a new parcel just
to take advantage of the commercial infill provisions. The question is,
are these owners creating a new parcel to take advantage of
commercial infill, or is it the county's road plans that are creating a
new parcel?
If a new parcel is created, it is as a direct result of the new public
roadway that would be bisecting the property.
My clients did not ask for that roadway and, frankly, would
prefer not to have it. The county transportation department is the one
that's creating the new parcel with a new road running parallel to
Collier Boulevard and connecting to two other public roadways.
This is not being done to take advantage of commercial infill. It's
being done to accommodate a public road network in this area. The
county's action creates the new parcel, not the property owners.
The -- my clients have 9.3 acres that are adjacent to the shopping
Page 264
September 27,2005
center that staff agrees clearly qualifies. They are only asking for the
same 9.3-acre total next to Collier -- along Collier Boulevard next to
the shopping center. So they're seeking to enlarge what they're
already entitled to.
This PUD provides for a county well site, and it also provides for
affordable housing mitigation by pledging $1,000 from each of the
first closings on all the dwelling units to be built going to the
Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community
Development Corporation, a nonprofit organization which builds
affordable housing in Immokalee.
There is an error in the affordable housing language in section
6.9 of the PUD, and the phrase, quote, and each subsequent, unquote,
should be removed from the first sentence of that section. This PUD
has the support of neighbors, and it has the support of the planning
commission and it deserves your support as well.
I'd like to ask Bob Mulhere to come forward and summarize the
site planning considerations that were attendant to this project, and he
or I will be glad to answer any questions you might have at any time.
Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: I'm going to put one on top of if here. Thank
you.
For the record, Bob Mulhere with --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bob, hold on a minute. We have two
commissioners who'd like to ask a question. I'm going to ask them if
they want to do that now or wait till after your presentation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Bob, do you feel that from a
planning perspective this is a better -- makes a better community
planning perspective the way you've got it designed now?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, ma'am. I don't think anyone--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's the only answer I
Page 265
September 27, 2005
needed.
Secondly, I forgot to mention on the record, I'll mention it now, I
spoke with Don Scott as well. And I feel that there's nothing else that
you can do with this property. When it's split like that, you're helping
our people in both ways, not only that, you're giving us a road, but a
well site, and it doesn't make any difference to us which way the
residential is turned. In fact, to me it seems to make a lot better
planning sense if the commercial is fronting the road.
And so I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
We have questions by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. I looked at this -- I look at
this property and I looked at what you have here, and I think it's great
that we have commercial on 951, and I like the idea of the connector
road.
My concerns are that there's 17 criteria that need to be met in the
growth management plan and -- or in this project of the subdistrict.
I'm concerned that -- that we're missing about four or five of
these, and I would really like to see -- I agree with this proj ect 100
percent, but I really think that we need to address the growth
management amendment to this.
I take the growth management plan as something very sacred and
serious, and I don't feel that we should continue to flaunt the growth
management plan. And I would hope that my fellow commissioners
would look at this also, that there's at least four pieces of the criteria
on this that need to be addressed in the growth management plan,
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is -- the only issue with the
growth management plan is a road? Is that what caused it?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. I'd like to -- if I could, I'll just do a brief
Page 266
September 27,2005
explanation and respond.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think Bruce responded
to my question.
MR. MULHERE: He did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just wanted to clarify it.
MR. MULHERE: I was just going to read the purpose and intent
portion of the growth management plan policy, which is the
commercial and infill policy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I -- if I could interrupt you for just
a second, maybe Commissioner -- get to Commissioner Henning's
questions first.
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then we'll proceed from there, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And he did.
MR. MULHERE: I thought I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I also have -- I know that,
you know, we're trying to address the needs of the public, but I didn't
see anything wrong with the previous application, and, in fact, I
thought it was what I'd been screaming for, is more of those heavier
intensive service uses closer, and this one is just about right on our
urban boundary line. We don't have that out there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree with you 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think that, you know, it's
piss-poor planning. I hate to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a technical term?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, it is, it is, PPP. Ifwe
don't try to do that -- but the votes were counted in the back room.
And if we continue to do this, we just need to give Norm Feder more
money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Votes were counted in the back
room, what --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What do you mean by counted in
Page 267
September 27,2005
the back room?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would you please clarify?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, I will. The -- Mr.
Anderson went to the commissioners' office, and found out a couple
commissioners had a lot of concerns, wanted to do what -- the wishes
of the residents. So -- and that's what they did. They changed the
petition, and now what we have is a retail use and a residential use.
And what we had before was a, kind of like a Trade Center Way
where you had some of those uses of contractors and that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to clarify, they never asked me
what I wanted or didn't want.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They came in and presented this
plan. I'm sorry. I never -- I never heard anything else.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I was told. And if I
was --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You were wrong.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- mistaken, then I was
mistaken.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, because it did not happen
with me, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure didn't happen with me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Me either.
MR. MULHERE: I mean, look, we didn't feel that we had the
votes. We felt that there was concerns by the residents, we went back
to the drawing board to try to address it, and that's what we did. I'm
talking about the business park zoning a year ago.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You were fed erroneous
information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Business park zoning, yeah.
Page 268
September 27, 2005
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. We felt that there were
concerns that it was our choice to ask for the -- to ask for the indefinite
continuance, and you granted it to us so we could go back to the
drawing board. That's what we did, and then we came back with the
plan.
So that's what's before us. I certainly don't want to get into --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Back room, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I apologize if I
offended anybody with that comment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You sure did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Halas, I do
apologize.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's getting late, it's getting late.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he was fed some erroneous
information. He can't help that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So anyway --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As I said -- I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hold on. Commissioner Coletta's
waiting if Commissioner Henning is finished.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and I just -- I want to
compliment the developer and his representatives. This has been held
up a long time. Commissioner Henning, you're right as far as the
residents there being a driving force in shaping this, but that's been
true all over.
We represent the residents that live there now. And they did,
they brought this thing down to its knees a couple of times. And right
now you don't see any number of people out there complaining about
it. There's been a tremendous amount of support for it.
I went back to residents in Vanderbilt. They said, no, we're
pleased as punch with what we've got now. They're the ones before
Page 269
September 27, 2005
that were having all sorts of issues and talking about even bringing
lawsuits against the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You understand my concern?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I do, I do. And I think it's
good that you bring it up, but you're right about it being resident
driven. It is. And, I mean, you're not wrong at all about that. I got to
tell you that part, but that's not evil.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, as I stated, I think this is a
great project, and I really commend you for it. The only thing I'm
asking is, is there some way that we can expedite a GMP amendment
to this thing so this everything is above board and legal?
Right now there's about four issues, I think, that are pending on
this, and I would feel a lot -- comfortable if we could do whatever we
can but to make sure this is legal. And all we have to do is change the
GMP amendment and we'll try to rush it through.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: David, can you tell us what your
concerns are?
No, let's back up. Tell me where you think it is not consistent
with the growth management plan and why.
MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, comprehensive planning
department, planning manager.
Commissioners, there's three issues that we see. One is the intent
of this subdistrict, which is to apply to relatively small parcels on a
major roadway where residential development may not be compatible
or appropriate.
We're dealing with a 37-and-a-half acre project here, and we just
don't think that's small. The language in the subdistrict itself
specifically says that up to 12 acres is the maximum size for
commercial. The balance of the property must be left in -- used for
open space or conservation purposes, and that's not what's being
Page 270
September 27, 2005
proposed here.
I would agree with the petitioner, and I think a comment that he
made at the planning commission, that for the balance of this property
to be left in open space use is ludicrous. I agree with that, because I
don't think they're consistent with the comprehensive plan.
This project, I think, is of such size and configuration that it is
viable for uses that are presently allowed under its designation as
urban mixed use. But -- so besides the intent, that's the first one.
Secondly is the -- really, I was touching on theirs, the size of the
property. It's limited to 12 acres in size, then the balance must be
open space. And, again, this is a 37-and-a-half acre project. The
entire project being used for residential and commercial uses.
The third point is the creation of a new parcel of land. They are
proposing to reconfigure the property, to take the commercial from the
southerly border and make it along the easterly border. I certainly
understand that the county's request for a new roadway is a different
set of circumstances, but I suggest to you that there's nothing in the
growth management plan that accounts for that. There's no language
there that suggests that you, under this circumstance, can look at this
differently. It's simply not part of the criteria.
Then the last point is, as always, the county commission makes
the final decision as to whether or not a project is consistent with the
plan. Staffs standpoint is, it is not, that they should file for a growth
management plan amendment, just as the other 12 petitions did in the
2005 cycle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how much -- what part of those
problems is caused by the county's insistence on this roadway?
MR. WEEKS: Two of those three issues would disappear. The
issue of creating a new -- the only issue that would be remaining -- of
course, presumption would be that if the county roadway was not
there, then they would leave their commercial along the southerly
portion of the property, then there would be the issue of the balance of
Page 271
September 27,2005
the property not being left in open space.
But I'll need to go ahead and additionally say that I think that the
petitioner would tell you that if that roadway wasn't there, that they
would be asking for a residential only proj ect. I say that because we
had a preapplication meeting a few months back because this was
submitted, and that is, in fact, what they asked for was all residential.
And I believe that changed when the growth issue came up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that would have been in compliance
with the growth management plan?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So I think you just told me that
all of the things would likely go away were not for the change in this
roadway?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, I believe so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think -- I think if there's a wound here,
it is self-inflicted by the county.
And I'm going to call the question.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3-2, with
Commissioners Halas and Henning -- it does not. It needs four votes.
Okay. It doesn't say supermajority here.
MS. FILSON: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So it fails.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would one of the opposing
votes want to make a new motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not me. I'm ready to move on.
Page 272
September 27, 2005
I'm not going to stay here all night.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It looks like it's ended.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2005-51: FLOOD RATE SCORING SYSTEM-
APPROV AL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING FLOOD
ORDINANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (ORDINANCE
86-28 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 87-80 AND ORDINANCE
90-31) TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CERTAIN SECTIONS, ADD
NEW SECTIONS, ADOPT THE NEW FLOOD INSURANCE RATE
MAPS PRIOR TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S EFFECTIVE DATE OF
NOVEMEBER 17, 2005, AND ADD PROVISIONS TO IMPROVE
THE COUNTY'S SCORING IN THE COMMUNITY RATING
SYSTEM OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
_ TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE NOVEMBER 1, 2005 CCPC
MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 8B. It's approval of an amendment to
the existing flood ordinance of Collier County, Florida, ordinance
number 86-28 as amended by ordinance 87-80 and ordinance 90-31 to
repeal and replace certain sections, add new sections, adopt the new
floor insurance rate maps prior to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's effective date of November 17,2005, and add provisions to
improve the county's scoring and the community rating system on the
national flood insurance program.
Mr. Joe Schmitt and Mr. Robert Wiley will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I ask my fellow commissioners
something? This particular item consists of two parts, one is to, in
essence, adopt the new flood insurance rate maps because we have to.
We're being told to do that by FEMA. Another part is a relatively
Page 273
September 27, 2005
complex scoring modification for the national flood insurance system.
We can probably spend four or five hours debating that part.
Would you commissioners have any problem separating this into two
pieces?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The first piece is to adopt the FEMA
flood elevation maps and postpone the second one for a workshop so
that we can evaluate the overall impact of those recommendations. I
think the concept is good, but trying to debate those tonight will take
us forever.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm fine with -- may I
make another suggestion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is -- this language is going to
affect our land development code.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to see the planning
commission review this and bring it back to us with recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I think we need more work on
that part. I notice that DSAC unanimously disapproved everything
that was done with respect to it, and that puzzles me because what's
being done is very constructive.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Staff is trying to find a way to reduce the
insurance rates for the people of Collier County by imposing stricter
building regulations, but it does need additional work, I think, and we
need to understand the implications. So if you don't have -- if you
don't have a problem, we'll split this in two parts, postpone or continue
the second part.
MR. MUDD: You could tell us to take it to the planning
commission and let them review it before it comes to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay.
Page 274
September 27, 2005
MR. MUDD: And then if it turns into a heated debate in the
planning commission, then we can schedule a workshop, if that's the
board's desire.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sounds okay to me. How about the rest
of the commissioners? You okay with that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what I would like.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then why don't we do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve to adopt the new
flood insurance rate map for the floodplain management purposes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we do have a public speaker
for this, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. Ellie Krier. I'm sorry; yes, sir, Ellie
Krier.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. KRIER: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, Ellie Krier
representing the Naples Area Board of Realtors. Just very briefly
thanking your staff for reaching out to us with respect to 6270, which
is the flood disclosure forms.
We feel that with Mr. Wiley's help, we have good language
protecting buyers as well as sellers and real estate agents, and offer up
the resources of our legal resource committees to draft for your use a
disclosure document. We do a lot of disclosure documents. We'd be
happy to produce something that's fairly ironclad from our files for
your reVIew.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Ellie, if -- your clients
essentially support these new rating system changes; is that essentially
true?
MS. KRIER: That's essentially true, except I believe we're silent
on the -- and I'm going to ask Robert for the correct term -- the added
foot.
Page 275
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, the one foot three--
MS. KRIER: We're not offering an opinion on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, fine. Thank you very much.
MS. KRIER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of adopting the new
flood insurance rate maps as we're required to do by FEMA, please
signify by saying aye.
MR. MUDD: Can you give me an implementation date?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Effective date of November the 17th,
2005.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: November 1st.
MR. MUDD: We're asking for November 1 st on this particular
one on the maps.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It says effective date, November the
17th, 2005.
MR. MUDD: That's when they're doing it. That's when it's
coming down from FEMA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: But we're trying to get our -- we're trying to get
our ordinance with an effective date of 1 November.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You are. Okay. Then let's make it 1
November. Okay? Is that okay for the--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
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?
(N 0 response.)
Page 276
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make a motion to send it to
CCPC --
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and then if they can't -- I'll make a
motion to send the rest of this subj ect to CCPC for their perusal, and
then if they come into a heated discussion, can't come up with --
MR. MUDD: For their perusal and recommendations to the
Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Recommendations to the
Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you want a formal motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I said, do you want one?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas, to refer the flood map rating system
chances to the CCPC for comments.
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 passes unanimously.
Item #8D
Page 277
September 27, 2005
ORDINANCE 2005-50: PETITION PUDZ-2004-AR-6207 MAC
BUILDERS, INC., REPRESENTED BY TIM HANCOCK, AICP,
OF TALON MANAGEMENT, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE PUD
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT TO
ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 86 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING
UNITS. THE PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 10.76 ACRES, IS
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RADIO ROAD
EXTENSION AND PALM SPRINGS BOULEVARD, IN SECTION
34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY~ FLORIDA - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner that brings us to item 8D. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclose be
provided by commission members.
It's petition PUDZ-2004-AR-6207, MAC Builders, Inc.,
represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, excuse me, of Talon
Management, Inc., requesting a rezone from the C-1 and C-2 zoning
districts to the PUD, planned unit development zoning district, to
allow a maximum of 86 multi-family dwelling units.
The property consisting of 10.76 acres is located in the northwest
comer of Radio Road Extension and Palm Springs Boulevard in
Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida.
My time's up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And all persons intending to provide
testimony for this hearing, please rise and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ex parte disclosure by commissioners.
Start with Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I received some correspondence, I
believe, early this morning, and so I want to make sure that I've
Page 278
September 27,2005
mentioned that, by Talon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. On 8D I've had meetings
with Tim Hancock and Kelly Smith on 9/26, e-mail and phone calls,
and I talked to staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have met with Mr. Hancock.
I've had correspondence on this issue.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had meetings, I had a
meeting with Tim Hancock and with staff, I went out to see the
property, and I've received e-mails and a letter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received some information
from Mr. Hancock, I received an e-mail from -- two e-mails -- no, I'm
sorry -- one e-mail from Jerry VanHack, two e-mails from Jerry
VanHack, and, Commissioner, I think I received another one this
morning like Commissioner Fiala, and I'll find it and let everybody
know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's it.
Mr. Hancock?
MR. HANCOCK: Good evening, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. I'm Tim Hancock, representing MAC Builders, the
petitioner in this matter. Also here with MAC Builders, is present,
Mr. Carlos Pilose, and also Mr. Jeff Davidson of Davidson
Engineering.
I request that the BCC recognize without objection the following
individuals as experts in their field as it pertains to this hearing:
In the area of planning and land use, myself, Tim Hancock, and
Mr. Mike Bosi, member of your staff; in the area of traffic impact
analysis and civil engineering, Mr. Jeff Davidson, and Mr. Don Scott
in transportation engineering. All these individuals have been
tendered and accepted as experts in their respective fields by this body
Page 279
September 27,2005
in the past. I ask that they be recognized as such at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: If there's -- without objection from the board,
three housekeeping items quickly.
First of all, the correspondence you received from me this
morning is an update on the contract purchaser status of the property.
MAC Builders, the petitioner, is the owner of the property. The
property does have a contract property, Macan Investment
Corporation, which is owned by Juan Macias. Macan has assigned the
contractor to a local developer who you'll be hearing a little bit about
later, which is Florida Heritage Development, LLC, operated by
Dennis Frechette and Michael Del Duca.
In updating that information, I have a copy that I will provide the
court reporter for the official record, identical to the documents you
received this morning.
Second item is a correction to the application on your agenda
which lists me as a member of the AICP. I'm not a member at this
time.
Lastly, there was some confusion on the part of the planning
commission regarding front and rear yard setback information. For
those of you that had the opportunity to share a list of seven items that
we had come to agreement with the residents on, I have added that
eighth item and will read it into the record in the course of the
presentation.
I greatly appreciate your patience and your stamina on a day like
today. Because this item was recommended denial by the planning
commission, I'm compelled on behalf of the rights of the property
owner to enter a full and comprehensive presentation today.
I would offer to you an option which may be palatable which
would be to hit on the differences that have been arrived at and agreed
upon between the planning commission and now, to talk about those
on the record, allow the public then to speak. Some of these folks
Page 280
September 27,2005
have been here since one o'clock, and we greatly appreciate their
stamina also.
And if after that, if there are questions about the action, I then
would ask that I be able to put the balance of my presentation into the
record. That may save time, it may not, but I thought I would offer it
as an option to the commission at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, what would you prefer,
an initial abbreviated presentation and then see what your questions
are?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's go with a brief summary,
and then we'll see what the questions are.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. We'll try the Reader's Digest version
first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: The property's 10.7 acres, located at the
intersection of Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane. As you can
see from the exhibit on your screen, it's predominantly C-1 zoning and
has C-2 zoning adjacent to Woodside Lanes, which differentiates this
piece from the Triad PUD. C-2 zoning allows a little more intensive
development, including medical office and some limited retail.
Again, a quick refresher. The property to the rear is zoned
RMF -12 with a density cap of seven but is a development with
single-family homes immediately adjacent to the project. This is the
Triad PUD project which you approved on February 22nd of this year
at a density of eight units per acre.
To the south and slightly east, 24-hour convenience store, a
Circle K gas station, and to the west, a C-4 intensity use, Woodside
Lanes, which is a bowling alley with a lounge.
What is being requested here today is eight units per acre, the
same density requested by Triad.
When we arrived at the planning commission, to say the least,
Page 281
September 27, 2005
there was poor communication between the applicant and the residents
of Palm Springs. Not that efforts weren't made, but let's just say it
broke down, and I'll accept responsibility for that fully.
Since that time, with the advent of Florida Heritage coming
onboard, we've had a second neighborhood information meeting. We
noticed all property in the neighborhood, not just within 500 feet.
We had an attendance of about a dozen people at that meeting.
We discussed the project, identified the items of concern at the
planning commission.
And what I'm going to cut to now is something I refer to as
Exhibit A, which was attached to what you received this morning
from me. I, again, will be giving a copy to the court reporter for the
record.
And I believe that after we go through these items and you hear
the public speak, you will probably see a very different approach than
what the planning commission saw and one that I think that we have
taken the steps necessary to incorporate the concerns of the
community into the project in such a way that we have achieved the
compatibility that you would seek from any application before you.
Some of these items will be incorporated directly into the PUD.
Some of them, while the residents recognize that we can't put certain
statements of agreement to work on issues into the PUD, we want to
enter them into the record to at least show that we will continue to
work with them on items that are not specifically zoning-related
matters.
To that end, the eight items on Exhibit A are: Number one, the
primary concern we heard was about traffic and safety at the planning
commission. We were accessing the project off of Palm Springs
Boulevard and would line up exactly across from where the Triad
PUD access was approved.
In meeting with the residents, we were able to look at the
distance between Palm Springs Boulevard, which is right down here,
Page 282
September 27,2005
to the driveway for Woodside Lanes. We found that that distance
would permit an access off of Radio Lane. We agreed to place that
access off Radio Lane if it is the direction of this board.
I've met with Mr. Don Scott. I think you will hear that it is his
preference to be off Palm Springs Boulevard, but there is nothing
prohibiting us from coming off of Radio Lane.
In deference to the interest of the residents, we have agreed to
have the access off Radio Lane if that is the desire of this board, and
would include that in the PUD.
A second concern was -- if I can go back to a slide. If you look
on this aerial, there's a row of development here. After this area had
been substantially developed as single-family, even though it was
zoned multi-family, some development occurred of duplexes that were
not under any deed restrictions, that put driveways in about twice as
wide as a normal driveway.
Some of those we have multiple families living in them with six
and eight cars out there at night, and it's created a real compatibility
problem for the folks in the neighborhood.
And they were really concerned about the unit size, even going
as far as being concerned about the number of bedrooms. We're
happy to specify that our project consists of nothing more than
three-bedroom units with den. There will be no four-bedroom units in
the project. Again, in response to their concern, we've offered to
include that in the PUD.
Additionally, again because of the parking condition back here --
and, again, these units were developed without deed restrictions. As
you can imagine a planned community, deed restrictions prohibit more
than one family occupying a unit at any given time.
There's also deed restrictions on parking, and those will all be a
part of this project. But we've also agreed that while each unit within
the proj ect will have an attached garage, be it one-car or two-car, that
no unit will be provided more than two additional spaces outside their
Page 283
September 27,2005
garage. This, again, is to try and deter the situation of having a great
number of cars utilizing anyone unit at anyone time.
Again, not typical zoning issues, but I think in trying to respond
to the concerns of the residents, based on their individual experiences,
that we're comfortable including this language in the PUD and giving
that assurance to them.
The next few items are items that we've pledged to work with the
neighborhood on, and I will read them into the record at this time.
And I'm sorry if this doesn't seem like the abbreviated
presentation, but I'll do my best.
MAC Builders or the project successor/owners pledges to work
with the owner of the Triad PUD or its successor/owners and the
residents of Palm Springs to construct a fence from the northeast
comer of the Triad PUD to the county park at the rear of the
community. That would be really along this line on the right side.
We don't have the ability to construct that fence ourselves, our
residents don't, and Triad doesn't. But in working together -- and we
have agreed to work with the community to share in the cost of doing
that, hopefully what that will do is, there has been some trespass issues
of folks creating paths through private property, and we hope to help
them resolve that issue. We pledge to continue working with them
toward that end.
MAC Builders or the project's successor/owners pledge to
support the community in finding appropriate and safe locations for
bus stops and will assist in construction of a bench with a shelter and a
bike rack in the event a location is deemed to be warranted adjacent to
the MAC PUD.
You may recall that Triad will be constructing a bus stop here at
the corner. The residents have concerns in the area I'm circling right
now on that aerial is being used as a bus stop.
They may be working with the school board to relocate one a
little closer back here into the neighborhood. And if so we'd offer--
Page 284
September 27, 2005
we have offered to construct that. If it's deemed to be adjacent to our
property, we'll construct the bus shelter and the bike rack at no cost to
them.
So, again, it's an issue that needs to be worked out. What we're
pledging is our participation and support for that matter.
Next item is the MAC Builders or successor/owners will work
with the committee of residents from Palm Springs neighborhood to
provide them with the renderings of buffers along Palm Springs
Boulevard and Radio Lane prior to the submittal of our SDP
application. Their input will be requested regarding the type and style
of landscape buffer. Do they want a wall; do they want vegetation?
We will not bring the SDP forward without receiving their input
and moving forward in a cooperative effort with them as to which of
those two buffers -- because a Type B gives you an either/or -- which
of them they prefer.
Next item, number seven, the developer will make an effort to
preserve existing pine trees where practical in planned open areas not
subject to fill or excavation. In other words, if it's -- if we don't have
to fill it and we don't have to dig it out, we're going to do everything
reasonable to preserve as many of the pine trees on the property as
possible.
And the last item -- it's going to sound a little bit odd, but the
planning commission spent a few minutes on talking about front yard
and rear yard setbacks. And I think I can speak for everybody there
that nobody really understood what it was about.
But in order to avoid that confusion, we'd be happy to include the
following statement in the PUD: For purposes of measuring acquired
setbacks, units that front on an interior street within the development
shall apply the rear yard setback from the rear of the building to the
property line including when the property line borders a public
right-of-way.
There's some concern about whether somebody could call that a
Page 285
September 27, 2005
front yard setback because there was a public right-of-way adjacent to
the property line. I know your staff would not interpret it that way.
But, again, it created some confusion, and we want to try and limit
that confusion.
In addition to those numbers which will be incorporated into the
PUD -- there's four of them to be incorporated in the PUD -- the others
indicate a clear desire to continue working with the neighbors on areas
of mutual interest.
We have also included in the PUD many of the items from Triad.
The permitted uses have been restricted to prohibit a rental
community. Building height is limited to 35 feet. The average size of
the units constructed will not be less than 2,000 square feet in total
gross area. A temporary construction access will be requested if
necessary on Radio Lane, not on Palm Springs Boulevard.
And the last item I spoke with, I think, two commissioners about
is, there is a -- the property currently drains to a canal that moves
along the western edge of Palm Springs. I think some of you have
heard from residents in that area that they're not real happy with the
drainage.
As your staff will tell you, the project is prohibited from
discharging into that canal anything more than it has historically
discharged. What we find is that usually development will attenuate
those discharges. But we're prohibited from worsening that situation.
What we're asking you to do is -- as using this application as a
springboard, if you will, would be to direct your staff to look at the
maintenance of that canal, because the neighbors have indicated to us
it has gone unmaintained or poorly maintained for an extended period
of time.
If your staff needs access to the south end of that drainage ditch
through our property, we'll be happy to grant a 10- or 15-foot
easement to provide that access. I believe they have ample access at
the cul-de-sacs. But if we can make that commitment and follow
Page 286
September 27,2005
through with it to help the drainage problem, we'd be happy to.
What we don't want to do is we don't want to actually be asked to
step up and do 10 years of maintenance on a canal that isn't on our
property. But if we can help provide access to it to resolve that
problem, we'd be happy to do so.
I'd like to thank the residents of the Palm Springs neighborhood.
And without cutting into their time and extending their evening, if it is
your desire, I'd like to defer to the public speakers at this point and
then wrap up with anything that you may deem necessary at that time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions of the petitioner at
this point in time? Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I looked at the
recommendation that the -- excuse me -- the planning commission
came forth. How did you address the four sections of the LDC? Did
you address them that -- in regards to the PUD?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I would like to have a real
brief statement on each of the four sections of the LDC that was
mentioned here in our material.
MR. HANCOCK: And I'm sorry I don't have the section citation
in front of me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I could give them to you. It's
4.07.07B.l and 4.07.02D.3.B and 4.07.02D.3.F, and the last one is 4.7
-- or 4.07.02D.3.G.
MR. HANCOCK: If I can summarize for you the two categories
that those applied to as primary compatibility and access. They deal
with a variety of applications of those two issues.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how did you address that?
MR. HANCOCK: The compatibility issue, as stated in your staff
report and equally stated under the LDC considerations of our
application is just this, we go back to the zoning map. Compatibility is
-- right now we're dealing with C-l and C-2 zoning.
Page 287
September 27,2005
If developed under that zoning category, this project will produce
a daily average of 1,860 trips. Under the proposed zoning, the
projected trip generation is 572 trips. We already have, in essence, a
reduction in impact to the community by virtue of the requested
rezonIng.
Additionally, the county commission, by virtue of the adoption of
its own zoning maps, has deemed the current zoning to be compatible
with the surrounding zoning. That's a straight function of your zoning.
What we're proposing in every shape and form is a down zoning.
In other words, to argue that RMF with an eight unit per acre density
is less compatible with single-family homes than would commercial
zoning, I honestly --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I cut you off there?
MR. HANCOCK: Please, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're trying to make this -- get--
move fast. Why did the CCP (sic) feet that this failed in those areas?
Did they give you any indication why it failed those particular items?
And my other questions that's going to be -- and I might as well
give it to you right now -- is policy 5.4 of the growth management
plan, items 5, 6, 7, and 10, as they listed it in here, of the rezone.
And how did you address that, after the -- going through the
planning board?
MR. HANCOCK: To be candid, Commissioner, I believe that
the findings that the CCPC moved forward with were not supported by
competent, substantial evidence entered into the record.
On any of those issues dealing with compatibility and access,
your staff, their testimony, their information placed into the record,
our information placed into the record, made significant inroads into
establishing that the proposed action resulted in increased
compatibility over the existing zoning.
So I cannot honestly sit here and tell you why the planning
commission disagreed with that.
Page 288
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was a 7-2 vote.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, I'm aware of that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's overwhelming.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And I honestly feel that a large part
of that decision had to do with the fact that the residents did not have a
level of comfort with the application as it sat at that time.
There were issues the residents felt were not compatible, and I
believe through line item, we have tried to address each and every one
of those.
For example, they were concerned that this project would reduce
the valuation of their homes. What they have seen and come to -- and,
again, I won't put words in Ms. Gorman's mouth. I'll let her speak to
you about this -- is that what is currently proposed for the property
they see as a positive influence versus the existing commercial zoning.
At the time of the planning commission hearing, I don't believe that
was their opinion. I know it wasn't.
They were concerned about too many bedrooms in the units and
promoting an over-parking situation. What have we done to address
that? We've limited it to no four-bedroom units. We have reduced the
number of parking spaces, which is in excess of what the code
requIres.
So we have brought those levels down to increase the
compatibility over what was presented at the time of the planning
commISSIon.
Lastly, is it is fairly typical in this hearing forum and also at the
planning commission, that after the public speaks, the petitioner has an
opportunity to respond and address some of those comments. I was
not given that opportunity at the planning commission.
The public hearing was closed, and some of the issues raised, I
was unable to address at that hearing. Mr. Budd actually apologized
to me afterwards, and I think we could have resolved some of those
matters, Commissioner Halas.
Page 289
September 27,2005
But what have we done in the meantime? The form I've given
you with the eight points on it was taking each and every issue raised
by the residents and trying to address them specifically to the
satisfaction of those residents. I believe those actions represent
increased compatibility, increased safety with regard to access on
Radio Lane for the children in the neighborhood. I think those
changes are our response to the planning commission's
recommendation, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the concerns that the citizens
had covered this venue of LDC? Maybe I'll get that from the staff
later.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I think it's worthwhile pointing
out that the staff analysis indicates that the PUD is compatible. And
so even you disagreed with the planning commission; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: That's correct, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BOSI: Staff had found it consistent. And the reasons cited
for the rezone and the numbers within the growth management plan,
based upon -- based upon the zoning arrangement within the area, staff
found it consistent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Even when you took it to the CCPC?
MR. BOSI: That was the recommendation taking it to the CCPC,
and it's still the recommendation of staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So you're still recommending
approval?
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. And Mike Bosi from zoning and land
development review for the record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. We have some--
MS. FILSON: We have three public speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- speakers, okay.
MS. FILSON: Jonathan Smith.
MR. BOSI: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Jonathan Smith had to
Page 290
September 27,2005
pick up his son at seven o'clock. He had expressed to me that the one
point that he was really pushing for was that he wanted to see the
access for the project come off Radio Lane and not Palm Springs
Boulevard. With the inclusion of item number one, he was satisfied,
and he wanted me to convey that to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Cathy Gorman. She'll be followed
by Timothy Gorman.
MS. GORMAN: Hi. Thank you for your stamina as well. I'll
speak fast because it's past my bedtime.
Maybe I can -- I can answer what happened at the planning
committee. They had letters from over 42 -- it was about 44 residents,
plus there were a number of neighbors there, people who spoke.
Nobody's here tonight now except me.
The reason -- what they did was they listened to us, the same as
you listened to us when we came before you with Triad. I don't know
if you remember that. It was about eight months ago. We came
before you, we made our concerns known.
We're extremely concerned over the traffic in the area. So when
we went before the planning commissioners, what happened was we
made them aware that when was presented to us as neighbors, MAC
presented a great deal of four-bedroom units with two-car garages,
plus two cars in the driveway for each one, plus on-street parking.
We weren't talking about physical building density by that point.
We're talking about people density, about traffic density.
What's happened in the three weeks since that time -- okay. So--
I'm sorry. To back up. The planning committee really listened to us,
and that's what happened with that 7-2 vote. They took everything
that we said into account, especially regarding safety and the traffic.
What's happened since then is we have been approached by
basically Tim and other people, and they said, this development is
going to be purchased. One of the big problems when it was first
Page 291
September 27,2005
presented, too, is that MAC, by their own admittance, is a commercial
developer, and they told us, you know, we want to do it commercial,
or they would think about doing it commercial.
Anyhow, as residents, there's still a few -- and I don't want to -- I
do not want to grab defeat from the jaws of victory here by
mentioning this. There are a few residents that still are thinking that
maybe it still should be commercial.
Where we disagree with staff is that as far as commercial goes,
this area is surrounded by commercial. I just have a smaller map.
You can see everything in yellow is commercial. So it's -- it's, by two
sides of it, surrounded by commercial, and the property itself is
commercial. That's what the residents were standing on.
But since that time, they've come to us and said that if this PUD
goes through and it's at eight density, then MAC is going to sell it to
Florida Heritage. The neighbors don't have as much of a problem
now, as Mr. Hancock said, because they've reduced the people density
for us and the vehicle density.
The most critical thing that we would ask you for is, I'm still not
100 percent sure that your traffic people agree that their entrance
should be off of Radio Lane. For us as residents, that's the most
important factor in this whole thing.
Triad is already -- okay. Palm Springs -- Palm Springs is a small
street, and Triad is already coming into it, and basically, you know,
impacting it. To have another development -- and I'm going to say if
it's 86 units, we're talking at least 160 cars -- now also impacting a
small street with people trying to get out, it's going to create a problem
for us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. GORMAN: By putting it on Radio Lane, that helps us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: You final speaker is Timothy Gorman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Tim, are you just going to say ditto?
Page 292
September 27, 2005
MR. GORMAN: Pretty much. I'm nobody that showed up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tim, don't go away. The system
does work, doesn't it?
MR. GORMAN: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, you didn't get a
good response at the neighborhood meeting, and I think they heard it
loud and clear at the planning commission, didn't they?
MR. GORMAN: Yes, they did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we need to carry that
through throughout this proj ect and the developer needs to be a good
neighbor, right?
MR. GORMAN: And that was the response we got from -- when
Tim came back to us the second time, they approached it as, we want
to be your neighbor and we want to work with you. And that makes a
huge difference; it really does.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And let's make sure that they
do, because I know that your organization, or your neighborhood, is
very voiceful and you get things done, and -- so let's see if we can do
that.
MR. GORMAN: We're not afraid of telephones or e-mail.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. GORMAN: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do have one disclosure. I did
talk to a planning commission member.
I heard from Mr. Hancock a lot of mays and not shalls, and I
hope Mr. -- our attorney has the --
MR. WHITE: Yes, Commissioner. Assistant County Attorney
Patrick White.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have extra copies?
MR. WHITE: I did get one, and there were a couple of
Page 293
September 27, 2005
questions. I don't know if you want me to try to address them on the
record or work with Mr. Hancock afterwards. I'd be happy to do
either.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's do it on the record.
MR. WHITE: Okay. Under number one -- I'm sorry, number
two, the asterisks that indicate what would be in the PUD document
versus not falls at the end of the first sentence, and the question I have
is whether the second sentence, the no four-bedroom units will be
constructed, would also be in the PUD document.
MR. HANCOCK: It can if you believe it offers additional
clarification.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. WHITE: I do. Under number 3, the same question as to the
last sentence pertaining to the text, additional parking spaces may be
grouped. I believe likewise that it would add greater clarity for future
application by staff.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I have no problem including that
sentence.
MR. WHITE: Jumping from those that have the asterisks to
numbers four and five. Four has the phrase in it with respect to
pledging to work with the owners. And all I would ask -- because this
is obviously my first time seeing this document as well, how, and
whether that was intending to be expressed in any way as a financial
commitment or some other type of resources, and if you're prepared at
this time to put that on the record.
MR. HANCOCK: What we committed to the residents -- they
asked us to work with them and Triad, and we can only control
one-third of that equation. To that degree, if Triad is willing to share
in the cost of the construction of that fence, we will pay for 50 percent
of the fence and the installation of the fence, Triad picking up the
other half. We believe that to be fair. That's what we discussed with
Page 294
September 27,2005
the residents, and they were comfortable that that was a significant
commitment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what about Triad; were they a
buy - in on this?
MR. HANCOCK: You're going to see them at SDP, and that
may be the time that your staff can lasso that. We have not met with
them on this specific issue. Ms. Gorman has a better relationship with
Triad than anyone, and I don't think they want to make her angry.
MR. WHITE: I'd advise them, Commissioners, that if there's no
objection from the applicant's agent, that that would also be a
condition in the PUD, appropriately located, as to the 50 percent
commitment conditioned upon Triad meeting the other 50 percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, here's what I want, at
least, you will build 25 percent of the cost.
MR. HANCOCK: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You'll build 25 percent of the
cost, period.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He said 50 percent, didn't you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, they're going to--
if they were going to -- no, I got my math screwed up now. If Triad
agrees 100 percent will be done -- so let me just say 50 percent of it
will be built, period.
MR. HANCOCK: I understand where you're going. If they don't
do it, can we build half of the length of fence?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. HANCOCK: And I think we're comfortable with that.
What it requires is, it's going to require -- and Ms. Gorman and Mr.
Hampton, who could not be here tonight, know this, they're going to
have to get permission from the property owners in their neighborhood
to allow the fence to be constructed.
So if I understand you correctly, if Triad decides not to
participate, will we place half of the length of the fence in place. Is
Page 295
September 27,2005
that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. HANCOCK: Okay. Client indicates yes. So yes, we will
agree to that.
MR. WHITE: And my request would be --
MR. HANCOCK: Correct. And we have to ask permission from
the property owners.
MR. WHITE: Yes.
MR. HANCOCK: But I'll leave that to Ms. Gorman's persuasive
abilities.
MR. WHITE: And my recommendation to the board would be
that without any objection from the staff or the applicant, that that
would be a condition of the PUD properly located as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: Okay. And then I think the last issue is with
respect to number five. It indicates with respect to the bus stops that
the applicants will assist in the construction of a bench with shelter,
and, again, I would simply ask the -- and it says, if it's deemed to be
warranted, that meaning the bus stop and shelter. I don't know. I'm
assuming that the school district would be the ones who'd make that
determination.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've never seen any --
MR. HANCOCK: And I'm sorry. I maybe need to reword that.
MR. WHITE: So I'm asking the question, warranted -- deemed
warranted by whom, and then the second question is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Warranted by the Board of
Commissioners.
MR. WHITE: -- will assist how?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we just say
warranted by the Board of Commissioners? And I find it warranted.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, right now the school board does not
Page 296
September 27, 2005
have a bus stop along our property line. What Mr. Hampton is trying
to do is get the one that's across Radio Lane possibly moved, and so
they're talking with the school district about a future bus stop. And we
don't know if they'll want that down at the comer; in other words, it's
something the community is working on. And what they asked is if
they can get the school board to approve a bus stop location that is
along our property line, will we construct a shelter and bike rack.
What I'm trying to say is, yes, we will.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let's just say MAC
Builders will assist and facilitate on building a bus stop shelter in
accordance to the wishes of the school district.
MR. HANCOCK: I'm comfortable with that language,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And are we saying -- I mean,
MAC Builders is not going to be the property owners. So do we need
to say the PUD?
MR. HANCOCK: Well-- and that's why I had the language, or
the project successor/owners so that it carries with the property itself,
not just with MAC Builders.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: That was my intent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need this language to carry
with the PUD, carry with the land.
MR. WHITE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WHITE: And the PUD's provisions do. The PUD
document's provisions do.
MR. HANCOCK: And it's my understanding, Mr. White, that
you wish this also to be a provision stated in the PUD?
MR. WHITE: Yes, I believe they should be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the sidewalk issue
on your main, I would call, Spline Road?
Page 297
September 27, 2005
MR. HANCOCK: Oh, we removed that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: We'll construct sidewalks on both sides of the
internal roadway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would -- your -- the people
from Heritage is here?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes. Mr. Evan Weaver with Florida Heritage
is here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, we request the
applicant to meet with the residents, and I'm glad you met with them a
second time because I think you realize how we do things here in
Collier County. These folks are very good communicators, and you
don't want them to communicate to the county on your construction
product when you're constructing, okay? So I'm just giving you heads
up, if you be good neighbors, they'll be good neighbors with you.
MR. WEAVER: We're a local business, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the east coast?
MR. WEAVER: No, sir. We're in Naples. We've been in Naples
for 33 years, so we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you're the different one;
you're a different one than --
MR. WEAVER: Yes, sir,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- at the neighborhood meeting?
MR. WEAVER: Yes, sir -- well, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. I'm ready to make a
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm ready for a motion. You want to
make one? It's your district.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two other commissioners who
may have questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you can ask questions after the
Page 298
September 27,2005
motion's made. But Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Florida Heritage, you're a local firm,
but actually it's going to be owned by somebody in Miami, right?
And this --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well--
MR. HANCOCK: No, ma'am. The contract is currently
assigned to Florida Heritage, LLC, that the only condition is approved
at eight units per acre. Once that occurs, they then will close on the
property and will be the owner and developer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Okay, fine. Secondly--
MR. HANCOCK: This will not be developed by a Miami
company.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it says that in here, so that's
why I'm just asking.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am, for clarification.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We talked about fence. I would like
to add, if it's agreeable with my fellow commissioners -- I don't want
to see chain link fence there. I don't think that these people have to
have chain link fences, okay. So I would like that as a proviso.
Third, you were saying no four-bedroom homes, but three
bedrooms and a den are a four-bedroom home really.
MR. HANCOCK: Understood, and that's the language we had
agreed to with the residents. If we say -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know where they're coming from
because we see it happen all the time where the bedrooms are then
rented out and that's why they need extra parking spaces because too
many people are in an apartment and so they all stay in the parking lot
in their cars until the nighttime. I mean, we have to live with that a
lot, and I know what they're -- where they're going to from, and I just
wanted to make sure that they were protected. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
Page 299
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only thing I want to just
address here, we talked about the bus stop, and basically we're saying
it -- involving the school board. What about the possibility there
might be a bus stop for CAT because of the fact that, as prices of gas
keep going up, I'm sure that residents in here, since you're going to
build an area of 36 -- or 86 homes, I'm sure that there's going to be not
only your area, but other subdivisions that are in here that may be
interested in possibly having a bus stop there and a shelter.
MR. HANCOCK: We can certainly commit to meet with your
transportation department and CAT prior to the SDP submittal and
find out if that is something that needs to be addressed, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That would be wonderful.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'm going to go back to an
issue that's come up several times now. I just want to feel a little bit
more comfortable with this.
The planning commission, I mean, for them to come out 7-2 and
be totally wrong, I just don't understand where that's coming from. I
mean, they must have found this on some sort of good faith. Nothing's
changed since the planning commission really heard it other than
possibly some fences or some bedrooms. Nothing that would really
impact any of these concerns of theirs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll tell you what was explained
to me by a planning commission member, if you don't mind.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the residents at the
neighborhood meeting was told you have no say-so in my project.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That doesn't make any sense.
Why would they list a whole bunch of obj ections that aren't true?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, because the applicant
Page 300
September 27,2005
went to the neighborhood and said, you have no say-so in my project,
and it got back to the planning commission members.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so they listed a whole
bunch of false listings in the book which they really didn't believe was
true at the time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to keep my mouth
shut.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm very distressed by this.
I really am.
MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner, if I can attempt to offer an
interpretation. Things don't always go as smoothly as you want them
to. I've been involved in this for 15 years, and sometimes when you
show up at a meeting with elevations that we thought the
neighborhood would love; they hated them.
In that meeting -- and my client, this was the first petition in
Collier County. He had not been through this process before. And I
will tell you, there was some butting of heads at that meeting. It
doesn't go as well as you would like.
As a result of that, instead of continuing with communication to
the planning commission, the communication ceased at that point.
So the planning commission became the arbitrator, if you will, of
the differences. And when the neighborhood -- and we all understand,
compatibility is a broad subjective term, and if the residents felt and --
that this was not compatible, it certainly is their opinion, the planning
commission agreed with that, then that may be a reason for the
citations they provided regarding compatibility.
The difference between that and now is that there has been
additional language. There have been amendments to the PUD. There
are additional items being crafted today that have provided the
residents a degree of comfort they did not have at that time.
And if I could boil it down to one word of the planning
commission, I'd use the word trust. There was not a level of trust on
Page 301
September 27,2005
the part of the residents with what they had heard at that time. I think
we've bridged that gap, and that changes how you perceive the impact
of a project tremendously.
So while I don't agree with the findings of the planning
commission nor, frankly, does your staff, based on their report, agree
with the findings, Commissioner Henning said it best, they served a
purpose. Even if I don't agree with their findings, that they put the
parties back together to try and arrive at a mutually beneficial proj ect.
To turn this down today will maintain that it will be developed
commercial. I don't believe the majority of the residents want to see
that happen. They would rather go with the known in front of them
than the unknown of development under that commercial zoning.
And so just because the findings are something I don't agree with
and I don't believe they were supported by evidence in the record, they
served an intended purpose, and that was to arrive at a feeling of
comfort and trust with the neighborhood that resulted in the changes
you see.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Hancock.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, do you have a
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm going to make a
motion for approval with the stipulations that was given to us in
Exhibit A and further amended of Exhibit A. That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: No chain link fence?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
MR. MUDD: I don't know. It was mentioned by Commissioner
Fiala.
MR. HANCOCK: I believe it would be prohibited on a
residential parcel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then you get a wooden fence
that somebody has to maintain.
Page 302
September 27, 2005
MR. HANCOCK: Yes. And that's an issue we'll have to address
with the neighbors. We talked to them about maintenance and ability
to maintain. What we're going to look for is to put something in that
doesn't require the maintenance. That would be plan A.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask, what options do we have
open if we're not going to -- if we don't put a chain link fence up, we
don't put a stucco fence up; can it be a hedge of some kind?
MR. BOSI: Commissioner Halas, the only option within a
residential zoning district for the boarding of the property would be
for a stucco fence. Other than that, it would be a continuous --
contiguous hedge that has to be up to a certain height after one year of
growing -- I believe it's 48 inches -- offset by one tree every 30 feet,
would be an alternative to the traditional wall.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think something -- I think
that's something that ought to be discussed with the neighbors and let
them come to that resolution, that way we can make sure that it's --
aesthetically blends in with the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's -- I think that's what they're
going to do, right? You're going to work for the neighborhoods.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's got to be stucco, like he said,
so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can't be a hedge?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it could be a hedge, but it
can't be a cyclone --
MR. HANCOCK: Yeah. The hedge doesn't resolve the
Page 303
September 27,2005
residents' concern about the foot traffic coming through. The type of
fence we're talking about here are those concrete panels that don't
require maintenance because they have the color embedded into them
and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You bury a couple strands of barbed
wire in that hedge and it does wonders to keep from --
MR. HANCOCK: If I can get that past code, I'd be happy to do
it but--
,
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- constantino wire.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, constantino wire. Works real
good.
Okay, all right. Does everybody have their questions answered?
There can't be any more questions that don't have answers here.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta just
opposed on principle, so we have 4-1. Commissioner Coletta is in
opposition.
Okay. County Manager, what items do you want -- do you
absolutely have to have right now and which items are going to get
postponed?
Item #8F
TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 90-30, AS AMENDED, THE SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL ORDINANCE AND
REPLACE WITH ORDINANCE NO. 05- CONTINUED TO
Page 304
September 27,2005
OCTOBER 11~ 2005 BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, I would request that 8F be
continued until next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's make a motion about 8F
right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to continue 8F, which is
number 17E, till the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I second it.
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 continued.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next --
gentlemen, could you keep it outside, please?
Item #10B
DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF THE COUNTY'S NOISE
ORDINANCE (CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER
54, ARTICLE IV) AS AMENDED - CONTINUED TO THE
OCTOBER 11~ 2005 BCC MEETING - APPROVED
Brings us to the next item, which is lOB. I'd like to be able to
continue that item till the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to continue item lOB to
our next meeting?
Page 305
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to continue item lOB to the
next meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala
and the second by Commissioner Coletta.
Al in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is continued indefinitely.
Item #10F
APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH MCDONALD TRANSIT ASSOCIATES,
INC. TO PROVIDE CONSOLIDATED MANAGEMENT FOR THE
COLLIER AREA TRANSIT AND THE PARA TRANSIT SYSTEMS
NOT TO EXCEED $4~885J62.00 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item that we need to hear
is 10F, and it's a recommendation that the board approve and authorize
the chairman to execute an agreement with McDonald Transit
Associates, Inc., to provide consolidated management for the Collier
Area Transit and the Paratransit Systems not to exceed $4,885,162.
And Mrs. Diane Flagg, the Alternative Transportation Mode
Director, will present.
MS. FLAGG: Good evening, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Diane.
Page 306
September 27,2005
MS. FLAGG: Just for --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Move for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Halas --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Excellent presentation, Diane. Thank
you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gleaming.
Item #10G
TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2006 FISCAL
YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN, A GENERAL WAGE
ADJUSTMENT (COLA) AND MERIT INCREASE FOR THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY - TO BE CONTINUED
TO THE OCTOBER 11~ 2005 MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I don't know if you want to touch
this pay thing. It could be lengthy.
Page 307
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Don't touch it.
MR. MUDD: I will tell you there's -- okay. I'd ask to continue
lOG and 10H.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now let me explain the reason I
wanted to do this, is I wanted to have some time to discuss consistency
and compatibility of pay schedules for all of the county -- the Board of
County Commissioners' employees, and that's the only reason.
I have no problems with adjusting them or whatever, but I want
to talk about consistency, and I can't do that now, okay?
So can we -- is there a motion to continue these until the next
meeting?
Commissioner Halas?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's take one at a time. 16K11, which
was changed to lOG.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to continue by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second -- I'm going to get to you.
Second by Commissioner Fiala.
And Commissioner Halas has a question or comment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that I go
wholeheartedly -- agree wholeheartedly with you in regards that all
county manager -- people under the county manager and associates
should go by the same guidelines in the pay schedule.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. And--
okay.
All in favor of the motion to continue, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 308
September 27, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is a unanimous decision to continue.
Item #10H
TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2006 FISCAL
YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN, PROVIDING FORA
GENERAL W AGE ADJUSTMENT AND MERIT INCREASE AND
ALSO TO CONTINUE AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF NEW
CLASSIFICATIONS, MODIFICATION AND/OR DELETION OF
CLASSIFICATIONS AND ASSIGNMENT OF PAY RANGES
FROM THE PROPSED 2006 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND
CLASSIFICATION PLAN - TO BE CONTINUED TO THE
OCTOBER 11" 2005 - APPROVED
Now, item 16E1, which has been redesignated at 10H, is a
similar --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That'd be very short. I pulled it,
I can handle it in about --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. I pulled this one. But I think --
yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: E1?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's H, 10H.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Forgive me.
MR. MUDD: And that is 16E1.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 16E1?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's 16E1, that's right. That's what I
said.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 309
September 27, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So is there a motion to -- motion to
continue?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to continue by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. 16E is continued.
Now, we go to 16B2, which was 101, and Commissioner Fiala--
MR. MUDD: That's already done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's already done.
MR. MUDD: You voted 5-0.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now-
Item #10J
MEMO FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING TO JIM MUDD,
COUNTY MANAGER, REGARDING GOLDEN GATE LIBRARY
DATED SEPTEMBER 19,2005 WITH ATTACHMENTS - MEMO
WILL BE FILED IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OFFICE PER SUE FILSON - MOTION TO
REMOVE ITEM 16-II-DI-APPROVED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to the next item, which is 10J. We
can continue that discussion --
Page 310
September 27,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that the item on the
correspondence?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's do it and get it over with.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, this will take just a
minute.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who pulled -- I think
Commissioner Halas --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought Commissioner Halas --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I pulled that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You pulled it, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, Commissioner Halas did.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In one of the memorandums that
was sent to all of us commissioners, I believe, by Commissioner
Henning, my only concern was I didn't understand fully what he
meant when he says, my only intent, as I stated earlier, is to regain the
authority of the BCC for the people, which is outlined in the Florida
Constitution. I felt that -- I didn't think that we were losing any
authority here. So if someone can -- maybe Mr. Henning, if you could
explain what you were talking about here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I'd be happy to. It was
brought to my attention because of the library issue -- now, the county
manager and I are going back and forth about that, and I'm not after
Jim Mudd. I'm supporting of him, his continuance working for the
county, but I just want to be aware of our ordinance called the growth
management plan.
And I've asked the people in the -- where Kady sits, what do they
call that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Control room.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Control room to go to the
Page 3 11
September 27,2005
county website, and then go to planning, which is comprehensive
planning.
MR. MUDD: Down two. Down one more. Right there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And go to growth management
plan, and go to the parens, five-year capital improvement element, and
that's what I'm talking about, Commissioners.
And I'm not going to study (sic) on this issue, but there are other
capital improvements that are being delayed and there is a process
within the growth management plan that allows us to do mid-year
amendments to the CIE.
We have passed those time frames, and all I did was ask the
county commissioners -- and I sent -- him and I went back and forth in
e-mails, and what I would like to do is for Commissioner Fiala to say,
hey, East Naples, I'm building you a library.
But there are parks that Commissioner Coletta might be -- should
be aware of. There's a roadway that should be done. And I think the
public knows because this is on the public website, and we're telling
the public that, and it is our ordinance, and I just want to stick to our
ordinances.
Commissioners, this morning we were -- on the whole issue
about the Golden Gate Library and the grant, I provided in the public
record to where it was accepted. It was accepted long before the
commissioners said, okay, go to the state for renewal of this grant,
okay?
And it is June or July. Commissioner, you pointed it out. It was
the last meeting that our staff came to us and said, we're going to go
back and renew this grant. And what I find is, what we're doing is, is
giving -- we're not doing -- accepting -- we're not giving direction, and
things are not brought to me -- brought to us, and we're giving -- oh, I
forget, it's getting kind of late.
I would like for us before the staff -- and maybe Jim Mudd is not
aware of this, that -- some of the staff in the example of this grant,
Page 312
September 27, 2005
they got it. They said -- the state said, okay, you got it. You got it
back in June or July, and then your library staff comes back and says,
oh, well, I guess we need permission from the county commissioners,
and that was at our last meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought we had given permission
when we addressed the AUIR reports; am I correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, we're not going to solve this
tonight. Let me tell you, if we expect absolute precision on dates on a
five-year capital improvement schedule, we are really smoking
something strange. And I've experienced this same sort of thing.
But let's take the Golden Gate Library as an example. Now, I
don't know what happened to cause the confusion. I know that there
was some mix-up in communications, and the residents got some bad
information -- or some information that led them to believe we were
doing something we really weren't doing.
But now just today we have said, let's take a look at vacating a
street to build the Golden Gate Library or build a larger Golden Gate
Library.
Now, that hasn't even been designed yet, we haven't even taken
action to vacate the street, we haven't looked at the water --
stormwater issues, and we're going to have to go back to an architect
for redesign.
Now, it is unbelievable to me that we're paying $500,000 to
redesign something, and we've had that contract out there for a long
time. That just numbs my mind. We ought to have a standard design
for the libraries, just like CVS Pharmacy or something. You know,
you have a standard. Why spend half a million dollars every time you
want to design a library?
But my point is, that things like that come up. And there are
things that have surfaced by residents or surfaced by a commissioner
and they result in changes to the plan, and I don't think we can chisel
Page 313
September 27, 2005
these things into concrete and expect them to pop right out in exactly
the same month that was put into a five-year plan.
But we're not going to solve that problem right now.
Commissioner Henning has some concerns, and I think we have to
address them, but we're not going to find the solution here tonight.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think you mean that you
__ you're saying that it's okay for our staff to amend our ordinances.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I know you're not saying
that you want to delegate our authority to our staff. I'm just pointing
out, things have changed.
And, Commissioners, it goes to the administrative code and what
we're supposed to do in our -- in 9J-5. And we're telling the state
we're doing this, and it was my understanding we're moving forward
based on certain things that we passed.
And all I'm saying is, come to us and say, things have changed.
For whatever reason, we're not going to be able to do this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But just one more thing, and then I'll be
quiet a minute. But right now I would be willing to bet what the staff
is going to do is they're going to come back with the AUIR and they're
going to say, now, the changes we talked about with respect to
vacating a street are going to require certain modifications in our
schedule and our budget, and you're probably going to come back a
little -- toward the end of the year and tell us about that.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's going to have an impact.
We've got to give them some opportunity to make -- in other words
right now instantaneously, they can't make those decisions. Although
today we gave them guidance to do this. They can't make the
decisions immediately, so it's going to take some time for them to
work through the proper planning process to do what we ask them to
do, and it theoretically should show up in the AUIR before the end of
Page 314
September 27, 2005
this year.
But that's -- that means between now and then the schedule is
going to be incorrect. And it's just that kind of a problem that we
continue to run into, and I don't think it's anything that is -- that is
intentional.
But I have the same sort of things with projects in my district,
and I understand what you're -- but realistically, when you're dealing
with that complexity, it's very hard to -- to manage it with that kind of
precIsIon.
But Commissioner Coletta, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And to be honest with
you, you're both right. Here's my problem with what this is, is that it's
in there as part of the miscellaneous correspondence, and this is what
I'm going to ask Mr. Weigel, because one of the things, we all put
articles out for the different newsletters that are out there. We're very
opinionated, and that's good. We're supposed to be. We don't want to
all be cut out of the same material.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Except for me, I'm not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, you're very quiet. And we
appreciate that, by the way.
But it goes into the miscellaneous correspondence and we're
going to approve it. Does that mean, Mr. Weigel, that we're in
agreement with Commissioner Henning's letter when we approve this
particular thing?
MR. WEIGEL: No. It's just appearing in the record, and it is
being approved as part of the record.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, possibly, to make sure
there's no misunderstanding, shouldn't the records also include this
proceeding today and the part about the Golden Gate Library and the
discussion we've had this evening?
MS. FILSON: The miscellaneous correspondence is typed from
our office, and it eventually goes upstairs to the clerk's office to be
Page 315
September 27, 2005
filed for public record. And it will be filed along with the minutes of
today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but there -- it would be
nice if there's some sort of reference back so that people at some point
in time would be able to refer from one to another and know that the
letter, while there's some fact to it, it's a product of opinion, and it
might not -- and it might not necessarily be the total view of the board
itself. That was my concern.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, I have no problem with
Commissioner Henning's memo, absolutely none. I do have a
problem with it being in here. I've never seen this take place quite like
this, although maybe it's been taking place. If I didn't flip the page
over by accident, I never would have seen it.
It's strange how it was printed, too. You look and you've got a
white page, and it's printed on the back side of the white page. Well,
probably they just put the holes in the wrong side. But all of a sudden,
you're looking at it, you're going down it real quick, and bang, that
jumps right out and it bites you.
Is this a normal standard procedure that you've seen many times
before? I never entered a record -- a letter into miscellaneous
correspondence in five years now. I don't know if anybody--
MS. FILSON: Years ago -- years ago we used to put lots of stuff
on miscellaneous correspondence. It used to be like four and five
pages long, like every letter that came from the state and if someone
came and said, we would like this posted on miscellaneous
correspondence, I would put it on there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why?
MS. FILSON: For public record to file with the clerk. It was
Women's Republican Club that came in and had that question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm getting ready to leave here, so
let's bring this thing to a conclusion.
Page 316
September 27, 2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I need to ask one thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Basically it infers that I exceeded my authority by
putting out an RFP for a library design to -- that's ultimately going to
get built in '07/'08, and I -- and so I'm trying to figure out -- I just can't
build it overnight. I've got to get it designed. It takes about a year.
Then it takes about six to eight months to get permitted.
By the time you cut a construction contract, oh, by the way, the
design contract comes to this board and it gets approved, and a
construction contract comes to this board and gets approved before it
goes anywhere.
We don't spend any money. Yeah, there's some staff time
preparing an RFP to go out and get people to bid on it for their plans
and specs and whatnot. But that gets the proj ect going so it can
actually be complete.
Now, if you look at Golden Gate City Library, it was supposed to
be built in 2003/2004. We didn't cut the first design on it until
September 2003. We cut another design on it in July of2005, and you
just changed the design today, and we'll have to bring it to the board
the next meeting, hopefully, with the change to that one, and it will
add months.
I believe both those libraries are going to get done just about the
same time, and it's going to be at the tail end of 2008. That's what I'm
seeing right now with the way things are going.
And I'm just trying to stay ahead of it a little bit in order to get
things moving. And the board can, based on finances, if we don't have
the money, I can't build that particular item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have two commissioners who still
want to talk. Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to inform my other
commissioners here that this is a billion-dollar corporation basically.
It's a county government, but it's a corporation.
Page 3 1 7
September 27,2005
We have a CEO, and what we do is we charge the CEO to
address issues, in this case addressing growth and how we're going to
pay for it, whether it's impact fees, whether it's going to be ad valorem
taxes or how.
What we do here is we set policy. We leave the rest of it to the
county manager, who is the CEO, and there's no reason for us to sit
here and try to micro manage him. This man has got a lot of work, or
this person's got an awful lot of work, and he's got -- we need to make
sure that we're moving at a rapid pace because we have a lot of growth
that's coming into this county.
And to be tied up on a particular issue -- and we're looking for
the financing to take care of it so that we can address both libraries -- I
just don't want to see us continue to micro manage the manager.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think what you're saying
is you want to delegate the authority, because this is an ordinance,
Commissioner. And I'm not asking for too much. The word I want --
the phrase I want to use is, don't ask for forgiveness, ask for
permission. And it's our ordinance and policies, and they can't be
changed except by the elected officials.
And I would hope that we would have the RFP on a regular
calendar schedule, and I think it's on the second meeting in October.
Put it on the regular agenda and say, oh, by the way, we told the
Collier County residents that this is not going to start until 10 of 2007.
We're going to start it almost a year early and get it done. I think
that's good news.
Does -- anybody doesn't agree with me?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I don't understand why all
the correspondence going back and forth --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Read your growth management
plan.
Page 318
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you make a statement that
we're not -- that we're losing control. I don't understand that
statement. I still don't understand that statement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we -- we're dealing with one
little item of correspondence in this agenda. If somebody would like
to make a motion --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that we -- okay. He's made a motion
to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The item, the agenda item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All we're doing is accepting that
there's been correspondence. We're not accepting the content.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're accepting a statement that implies
that the county manager is not doing his job.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it does not contain the entire issue, a
description of the issue, or any rebuttal of the facts whatsoever. I do
not agree with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then I'll withdraw my
second, if that's -- if that's what you're saying. I did not take it that
way at all. I just took it as a matter of correspondence.
When Jim Mudd pointed it out to me and said -- he was
concerned that it impugned his reputation. We would never want that
to happen because we think he's doing an outstanding job, and all
think that, all five of us, and all of the staff, too. I just took it as a
matter of correspondence. I'm sorry that it's taken any other way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel said that. It's just a
matter of correspondence. You're--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not agreeing with it.
Page 319
September 27,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion on the floor.
Is there a second?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's no second. It dies for lack of a
second.
Is there another motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that the items in
9 A (sic), I believe it is -- I closed my book -- be pulled from the
record.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't want to pull every
item?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just 9A (sic).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That one, D.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: D-1.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: D-1, excuse me. I'm sorry. I
closed my book too soon.
MS. FILSON: What was the motion, sir? I didn't hear it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: To pull the material out of 9D.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that mean that he didn't have
that correspondence? I don't understand. What does that make it?
MS. FILSON: Do you want me to take the backup from 9D and
add it to miscellaneous correspondence?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not -- no. The information on D-1
to be pulled from 16 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Miscellaneous correspondence.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- miscellaneous correspondence,
D-1.
MS. FILSON: Oh. Take the letter out of miscellaneous
correspondence?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
Page 320
September 27, 2005
I'll second it.
Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1 to remove it. That
does not mean that the letter disappears. It is a piece of
correspondence from Commissioner Henning to --
MS. FILSON: It's going to be filed in our office, and ifit stayed
in here, it would be filed in the clerk's office, and it's all public record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Now, is there anything else that needs to be done?
MS. FILSON: I have one public comment, sir, which is next.
And I believe Kenny Thompson is gone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He left hours ago.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's not here. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What did we do with the
contract on 1 7 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We continued it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- E?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's continued.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We continued it.
MR. MUDD: We continued it, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, to the next meeting.
MR. MUDD: It was advertised. This way the advertisement will
continue to the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we are at public -- we finished
public comment.
Now, County Attorney, do you have anything?
Page 321
September 27,2005
Say no.
Item #12A
RESOLUTION 2005-343 - INITIATE NEGOTIATION
PROCEEDINGS WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF LANDS PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES,
CHAPTER 164 - ADOPTED
MR. WEIGEL: We do have 12 -- agenda item 12A, should be
heard, it has to do with an authorization of the board for the -- for the
county to enter into chapter 164 negotiations. This is the Vince Doerr,
Bernie N obellawsuit where we also have as parties the State of
Florida and South Florida Water Management District.
And we're just looking for authorization to get into the state
sanction, that is pursuant to state statute when you've got government
entities that are in litigation to go into mediation, and we're hoping
that we can include in that discussion, which has to do initially with a
lawsuit from Bernie Nobel and Vince Doerr, claiming that we, the
county, took away their access rights to their property, and we have
brought in the state because we entered into agreements with the state,
as you know, for a broad vacation of roadway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
MR. WEIGEL: So there we go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 322
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Anything else?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing else. County Attorney--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala asked if, and with the CRA
Director, if they could set up a joint workshop to basically bring in a
facilitator for -- this workshop's about an hour and a half, like an
educational one, just get through, you know, how do you set up the
overlay, how do you work through those particular processes, in order
to -- and we're trying to find a very successful one so that they can tell
us how they got over the early morning pains of getting it started.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And it would probably -- it would probably be a
good thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Is this the Bayshore CRA?
MR. MUDD: It's the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA. We'll
do a joint workshop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we'd like to invite the other
CRA there as well, the Immokalee CRA, if they'd like to sit in.
MS. FILSON: We have a workshop set up with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You've got three nods. Go ahead.
All right.
Page 323
September 27, 2005
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm not going to be
available -- I'm going out of town tomorrow and won't be back in time
to fill out the evaluation that we were supposed to have September 1
for the county manager. So it won't be on the regular agenda. And I'll
just have to hand it in on Monday. I'll come in on the weekend and do
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Why is that necessary to
be handed in before our next meeting? That's when we're going to do
it, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Unless you want to put it
off to the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it will be October the what, 11th?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I won't--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, you're not going to be here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to be around.
Unless you want to put it on the second meeting, then it could appear
on the regular agenda, but it was already passed at the beginning of
the meeting. I'm just saying I won't have it in. I was supposed to have
it -- I think we were supposed to have it September 1 by the contract
of each year.
MS. FILSON: Fifth. Wasn't it the 5th; October 5th, Jim?
MR. MUDD: Well, I'm asking -- my contract states that the
Board of County Commissioners gives the manager by 1 September
their rating of him.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And I put that in the memo today when I gave you
my rating. And I gave that to Ms. Filson this morning. You probably
have it in your in box at home (sic). And I basically said, if I'm going
to get it on the agenda for the 11 th, if you could please return your
comments to me by the 5th of October, and then I can get it in so it
Page 324
September 27,2005
can be published.
But if a commissioner can't get it in by that time, he can give it to
me the day before the meeting, and I'll put it in that way, and I'll give
everybody a sheet so that you can have it, and I'd put it out that way as
a special addendum to it. I'll publish which ones that we have that are
done, and the one that's missing, I can hand up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sounds good to me. Okay? Is that okay,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. I just wanted you to
be aware of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And one other thing, at the -- I
went to the impact fee task force meeting in Orlando. I shared -- I had
lunch with Al Zachella (phonetic) and shared our concerns about
impact fees going away.
And he stated to me, Commissioner, I'm not here to take your
ability to have impact fees. I just wanted government accountability
on impact fees.
So, you know, there's correspondence been going back on
reports, and I just wanted to tell you what I was told. And, you know,
I don't -- who doesn't want government accountability? And the
example that was given to us is a school district loaned another school
district some monies from their impact fees, and then --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who could that be?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- somehow it got funneled back
into the general fund years later, and that's all. I think -- I commend
somebody that says government should be accountable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but that's not what the legislation
they sponsored said, however. So whatever they're saying now, I
don't know about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much for the
report. Anything else?
Page 325
September 27,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nope.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Meet you in a few minutes, Paul.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I don't have anything.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do have, as a matter of
fact.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I do have something. No, I do have
something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, you are in receipt of a
letter, as are each of the other commissioners, from the sheriff asking
for an immediate workshop on salary schedules.
So if the commissioners do not mind, I think we should -- we
should give the county manager instructions to contact the sheriff and
work out a date. It will be opportune for us to look at all of these
things at one time since we've just continued a couple of them for the
next meeting.
So if it's okay with you, if there are three nods, he can set up a
workshop and we can talk about it. Is that okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a concern, Chairman. I
believe that the sheriff has already put in his pay plan two cost of
living adjustments already, and now he's coming forth in regards to
not only cost of living, but additional money to be allocated, and I
think what that's going to do is blow our budget in regards to what
we've allocated for the sheriff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is a concern, and -- but that
shouldn't be any reason we wouldn't sit down and talk. But you're
absolutely right, we have to be very, very careful about making major,
major changes to salary and benefits packages. Maybe there are other
ways to handle that problem. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir.
Page 326
September 27,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. This is a much lighter
note. Last Thursday evening around 11 o'clock, I had a knock at my
door.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Uh-oh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was the sheriff coming to get you,
right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it was quite a surprise. I
mean, it wasn't a trick-or-treater a little too early either. It was a nice
lady that lived a couple doors down, and she asked for my help. It
seems that she found this dog wandering around. The cutest little
puppy you ever want to see. It's called a carian terrier.
And so I told her, I says, we'll find a way to get to the -- our
humane -- excuse me -- our animal shelter.
I want the public out there to know that this dog is named Carlton
-- not after Guy Carlton -- and it's already been neutered, vaccinated,
and is heart worm negative, and it's in the adoption center now. Its
number is A as in apple, 035584. Call tomorrow morning first thing,
and you may have a shot at the most beautiful little animal you've ever
seen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know somebody else who's going to
get neutered pretty quickly if they don't stop talking.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Over.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Cheryl, get him home.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're adjourned.
(The meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m.)
***** Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Page 327
September 27, 2005
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
"ARTHREX AT CREEKSIDE" - WI RELEASE OF THE
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR "MASTER'S RESERVE" - W/RELEASE OF
THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR "CLASSIC PLANTATION ESTATES PHASE
ONE" - W/REDUCING THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE BOND
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2005-327: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PUBLIC) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE ROADWAY SEGMENT ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE
FROM AIRPORT ROAD TO ENTRANCE OF FIRST BAPTIST
CHURCH/BRIDGEW A Y"
Item #16A5
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF 3500 CORPORATE
PLAZA, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
Page 328
September 27,2005
SECURITY -W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A6
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "PROFESSIONAL
VILLAGE AT NORTHBROOKE", APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A 7
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA PARCEL
117" APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FOR CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROV AL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - WI
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A8
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA PARCEL
118", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROV AL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A9
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "IL REGALO REPLAT",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
Page 329
September 27, 2005
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A10
AN ADDENDUM TO THE OAK HAVEN APARTMENTS
AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL OF COLLIER COUNTY
IMPACT FEES - TO MAINTAIN THE AFFORDABILITY OF
THESE 160 UNITS IN THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 27~ 2020
Item #16A11
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE 2004-2005 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) BUDGET FOR THE
PURPOSE OF RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENT
FUNDS 121.- FOR $137,000 FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Item #16A12
AN APPLICATION BY SALAZAR MACHINE AND STEEL, I NC
FOR THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND THE
FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 2005-328: ASSIGNMENT AND CHANGE OF
CONTROL OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE FROM
TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. TO MOC HOLDCO II, INC., AND
INDIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF COMCAST
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC. PURSUANT TO
Page 330
September 27,2005
REDEMPTION AGREEMENT AMONG THE PARTIES
Item #16A14
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF SUMMIT PLACE IN
NAPLES, PHASE III, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROV AL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
THREE (3) ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENTS WITH
(2) NEW ROADWAY RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL
COST OF $150.00 - WITH THE COPELAND CIVIC
ASSOCIATION, JOSE MARTI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION
AND QUAIL COMMUNITIES REALTY
Item #16B2 - Moved To Item #101
Item #16B3
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE UNIFIED CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
PER THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B4
THE PURCHASE OF A PARA-TRANSIT BUS UTILIZING
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED FUNDS - THROUGH
GATEWAY MARKETING IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,253.00
Page 331
September 27, 2005
UNDER STATE CONTRACT #FVPP-05-CA-4
Item #16B5
THE PURCHASE OF PARCEL NOS. 148A AND 148C
REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SIX-LANING
OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) FROM GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD - TO CONSTRUCT THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY FACILITIES
SCHEDULED TO COMMENCE IN THE FALL OF 2005-AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING REVENUE
RECEIVED FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT UNDER AN AGREEMENT FOR
THE COUNTYWIDE GPS NETWORK IN THE AMOUNT OF
$60,000.00 - TO INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A
COUNTY GPS NETWORK
Item #16B7
BID #05-3861 "PURCHASE OF LIMEROCK AND FILL
MATERIAL, FIXED TERM CONTRACT" FOR THE
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $500,000.00 TO APAC,
INC., ORANGETREE MINE, FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES -
FOR USE IN GRADING AND REBUILDING LIMEROCK
ROADWAYS AND SHOULDER REPAIR ON ALL COUNTY
AND STATE ROADWAYS
Item #16B8
Page 332
September 27, 2005
BID #05-3874 "GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND 13TH
STREET LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE" TO ADVANCE LAWN
AND LANDSCAPING SERVICES, IN. THE AMOUNT OF
$67~629.80 (PROJECT #630413)
Item #16B9
THE PURCHASE OF PARCEL NO. 148B REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SIX-LANING OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (951) FROM GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TO
IMMOKALEE ROAD (PROJECT NO. 65061, CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT NO. 37) IN THE FISCAL IMPACT
$10,700.00 - TO CONSTRUCT THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE
AND UTILITY FACILITIES SCHEDULED TO COMMENCE IN
THE FALL OF 2005
Item #16B10
BID #05-3855 FOR THE PURCHASE & DELIVERY OF
FUNGICIDES, HERBICIDES AND INSECTICIDES TO HELENA
CHEMICAL COMPANY AS PRIMARY, AND PRO SOURCE
ONE AS THE SECONDARY - IN THE APPROXIMATE
AMOUNT OF $200~000
Item #16B11
WORK ORDER FOR BONNESS, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU SUNSHINE
BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - IN
THE BASE AMOUNT OF $301,691.31 AND CONTINGENCY OF
#16,848.82 FOR A TOTAL OF $318,540.13 FOR THE CURBING
Page 333
September 27,2005
AND ACCENT LIGHTING FOR SUNSHINE BOULEVARD
Item #16B12
RESOLUTION 2005-329: BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $300,000 FOR PORT OF THE ISLE COMMUNITY
TO BE REIMBURSED THROUGH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FEDERAL
ENHANCEMENTPROGRAMS-FORENHANCEMENTS
ALONG US 41 AT THE PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY
AND FAKA UNION BRIDGE ASSOCIATED WITH ITS
DESIGNATION AS A NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAY
Item #16B13
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL
REVENUE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
PATHWAYS PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $70~302.77
Item #16B14
A QUITCLAIM DEED FOR LOCAL STREETS IN PELICAN BAY
THAT HAD BEEN DEDICATED THE COUNTY ON PLATS,
BUT ARE STILL LISTED UNDER THE NAME OF WCI
COMMUNITIES~ INC. ON THE COUNTY'S TAX ROLLS
Item #16C1
BID #05-3740R TO FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. AND
HUGHES SUPPLY, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF BACKFLOW
PREVENTION ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,000 - FOR USE IN WATER
Page 334
September 27,2005
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
Item # 16C2
WORK ORDER #UC-117 TO KYLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $375,580.00 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
EXTENSION OF THE WATER MAIN ON WHITE LAKE
BOULEVARD, PROJECT 59005 - BY SUPPLYING POTABLE
WATER TO EXISTING AND PROPOSED LANDFILL
FACILITIES
Item #16C3
THE SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR
SANITARY THE SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE. FISCAL
IMPACT IS $30.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2005-330: THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE 1992
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS -_FISCAL IMPACT IS $30.00 TO
RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 2005-331: THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE 1993
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Page 335
September 27,2005
Item #16C6
RESOLUTION 2005-332: THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE 1994
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C7
RESOLUTION 2005-333: THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE 1995
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C8
RESOLUTION 2005-334: THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE 1996
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C9
RESOLUTION 2005-335: SETTING LANDFILL TIPPING FEES,
RECYCLING CENTER FEES, RESIDENTIAL ANNUAL
ASSESSMENTS AND COMMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTION
FEES FOR 2005/2006. TOTAL FEES BUDGETED TO BE
COLLECTED FROM RATES APPROVED WITH THIS
RESOLUTION ARE INCLUDED IN THE FY 2006 BUDGETS
FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND MANDATORY TRASH
COLLECTION
Page 336
September 27, 2005
Item #16C10
AN EIGHT (8) MONTH EXTENSION, THROUGH MAY 9, 2006,
FOR THE EXISTING DEEP INJECTION WELL
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #01-3193 WITH YOUNGQUIST
BROTHERS, INC. - ALLOWING PUBLIC UTILITIES TO MAKE
NECESSARY EMERGENCY REPAIRS, PLANNED
MAINTENANCE ON WELL FACILITIES, DRILL NEW WELLS
TO MEET DEMAND AND STAY IN COMPLIANCE
Item #16C11
THE SA TISF ACTION FOR A CERTAIN WATER AND lOR
SEWER IMP ACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENT WITH
BRIGITTE R. SIMON
Item #16C12
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $200,000 (PROJECT #725101), THE NORTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF)
PROCESS CONTROL BUILDING EXPANSION (PROJECT
#725091), THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY (SCWRF) PROCESS CONTROL BUILDING
EXPANSION - TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION EXPANDING
AND MODERNIZING THE EXISTING PROCESS CONTROL
BUILDING AT THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE TECHNICAL NEEDS
IMPOSED BY THE NEW PLANT EXPANSION
Item #16C13
Page 337
September 27,2005
A "CONSENT TO ENCROACHMENT" FOR UTILITY
EASEMENTS LYING WITHIN SUMMERWIND APARTMENTS,
PHASE I AND PHASE II - ALLOWING THE DISTRICT TO ADD
TO, REPAIR, AND REPLACE ITS UTILITY FACILITIES
WITHIN THE EASEMENTS WITHOUT THE DISTRICTS
APPROVAL; PROTECTS THE DISTRICT FROM LIABILITY
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISTRICT EXERCISING ITS
EASEMENT RIGHTS AS LONG AS THE OWNERS'
ENCROACHMENTS REMAIN WITHIN THE EASEMENTS
Item #16C14
CONTRACT #05-3785 "FIXED TERM UTILITY ENGINEERING
SERVICES" TO THIRTEEN (13) FIRMS - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D1
THE FY 06 AGREEMENT WITH THE DAVID LAWRENCE
MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. FOR $989,100.00 - TO
PROVIDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT FOR THE COUNTY; THIS AMOUNT WILL BE
SUBSIDIZED IN FEDERAL FUNDS THROUGH THE UPPER
PAYMENT LIMIT PROGRAM AND DISTRIBUTED BY NAPLES
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
Item #16D2
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE
ADMINISTRATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE UPPER
PAYMENT LIMIT PROGRAM FOR SERVICES PROVIDED ON
Page 338
September 27,2005
BEHALF OF THE HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, AND DAVID LAWRENCE
CENTER TO GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL $481,100 IN
FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS - TO EXPAND THE
PROGRAMS FUNDED BY THE BCC IN FY06 WITH THE
ADDITIONAL 17.5% IN ADDITIONAL DOLLARS
Item #16D3
A DONATION OF $68,000 FROM THE MARCO ISLAND
CHAPTER, FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ROSE HALL AT MARCO ISLAND
BRANCH LIBRARY, AND BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT - TO BUDGET THE $500,000
FROM THE W.R. ROSE FOUNDATION FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF THE "ROSE HALL" AT THE MARCO ISLAND BRANCH
LIBRARY
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 2005-336: AMENDING PARTS OF ARTICLE IV
(4) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR AREA LICENSE
AND FEE POLICY - TO GENERATE REVENUE SUFFICIENT
TO OFFSET RISING PROGRAM AND FACILITIES COSTS,
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1~ 2005
Item #16D5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING REVENUE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $38,706 FROM AN INSURANCE PAYMENT
COVERING DAMAGE TO THE SHADE STRUCTURE AT
Page 339
September 27, 2005
SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK AMPHITHEATRE - TO KEEP
FACILITIES IN GOOD REPAIR AND UTILIZE THE BENEFIT
OF INSURANCE COVERAGE
Item #16E1 - Moved To Item #10H
Item #16E2
WAIVE THE PURCHASING POLICY AS ALLOWED UNDER
SECTION VII.G. OF THE POLICY AND APPROVE A
RETENTION AGREEMENT WITH THE LAW FIRM OF
LANGSTON, HESS, BOLTON, SHEPARD & AUGUSTINE PA
AND THE LAW FIRM OF KELLEY STIFFLER THOMAS PLLC,
TO DEFEND CERTAIN WORKER'S COMPENSATION
LITIGATION CASES ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY AND THE
COUNTY'S EXCESS INSURANCE CARRIERS - AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16E3
REPORT AND RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKER'S
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
ANDIOR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15 FOR THE THIRD
QUARTER OF FY 05 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E4 .
AWARD RFP#05-3747R "INDOOR AIR QUALITY SERVICE" TO
PURE AIR CONTROL SERVICES FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY
Page 340
September 27,2005
SERVICES (IAQ) TESTING, CLEANING AND REMEDIATION
SERVICES - AS PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE FOR OVER
660 SEPARATE FACILITIES THAT REQUIRE CONTINUAL
INSPECTION~ REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE
Item #16E5
THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, CASUALTY, AUTOMOBILE,
WORKER' COMPENSATION AND ANCILLARY INSURANCE
AND RELATED SERVICES FOR FY 2006 - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E6
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF GAC TRUST
RESERVED LAND TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS &
RECREATION DEPARTMENT, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$20 - FOR A PORTION OF UNIT 22, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES,
CONSISTING OF 47.18 +1- ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON
IMMOKALEE ROAD NORTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH
RANDALL BOULEVARD
Item #16E7
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ST.
MATTHEW'S HOUSE, INC., FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF
PARKING SPACES AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER, AT A
TERM REVENUE OF $50.00 - SO THAT THEIR FOOD
PROGRAM MAY CONTINUE TO OPERATE WITHOUT BEING
IN VIOLATION OF COUNTY CODE CONCERNING REQUIRED
PARKING, THIS LICENSE IS EXTENDED TO SEPTEMBER 28,
2010
Page 341
September 27, 2005
Item # 16E8
LEASE AGREEMENT FOR 9,569 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE
SPACE LOCATED ON 2705 SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVE AND
ASSOCIATED EXPENSES, INCLUDING RENTAL, COMMON
AREA MAINTENANCE, RENOVATIONS, AND RELOCATION
OF HEALTH, EMS AND IT DEPARTMENTS OFFICES, AT A
FIRST YEARS COST NOT TO EXCEED $396,000 - THE LEASE
IS FOR THREE YEARS WITH THE COUNTY HAVING THE
OPTION TO PURCHASE THE BUILDING AFTER THE THIRD
YEAR FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE OF $2~538~964
Item #16F1
THE TDC RECOMMENDED (7-0) THE TOURIST TAX
INCREASE, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1,2005. APPROVAL OF
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 03-3537 WITH
PARADISE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING, INC. FOR AN
INCREASE IN THE MONTHLY FEE TO $25,000.00 PER
MONTH OR $300,000.00 ANNUALLY TO COVER ALL
PROFESSIONAL TIME, MEDIA AND PRODUCTION UP TO
$2~000~000.00 ANNUALLY.
Item #16F2
APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 2004/2005 TOURISM
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.
REQUESTING A I-YEAR EXTENSION TO SEPTEMBER 30,
2006 FOR COMPLETION OF THE CATEGORY "C" GRANT FOR
THE EXHIBIT CALLED EVERGLADES, A WORK IN
Page 342
September 27,2005
PROGRESS AT THE CONSERVANCY NATURE CENTER.
Item # 16F3
CITY OF NAPLES CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION
AMENDMENT FOR DOCTORS PASS DREDGING PROJECT
905501 IN THE AMOUNT OF $125,000. TO AMMEND THE
APPROVED AUGUST 11,2005 GRANT BY AN ADDITIONAL
$125,000 TO EQUAL THE BID PRICE FOR THE DREDGING OF
DOCTORS PASS.
Item #16F4
BUDGET AMENDMENTS #05-581, FUND TO COVER COST
FOR EMPLOYEE WHO IS PAID A GREATER AMOUNT THAN
THE PREVIOUS EMPLOYEE WHO WAS IN THE POSITION
WHEN THE BUDGET WAS DEVELOPED.
Item #16F5
RESOLUTION 2005-337 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REQUESTING THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO
INCLUDE THE FUNDING FOR THE CITY OF
NAPLES/COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT
PROJECT IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 LEGISLATIVE
BUDGET REQUEST.
Item #16F6
APPROVAL OF COASTAL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
TIME AND MATERIAL, NOT-TO-EXCEED PROPOSAL FOR
Page 343
September 27, 2005
$35,000 TO STUDY THE MOST EFFECTIVE APPROACH TO
PERMIT AND RE-NOURISH CLAM PASS BEACH PARK-
PROJECT 900281.
Item #16G 1 - CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 11, 2005 BCC
MEETING
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A 3.9 PERCENT
($3,490.50) COST OF LIVING INCREASE EFFECTIVE
OCTOBER 1, 2005 AND A $5000 BONUS TO BE PAID ON
SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, THERESA M.
COOK. (COMMISSIONER COYLE'S REQUEST)
Item #16G2
APPROVED LANDSCAPE CONTRACT BID #05-3830, -A
BUDGETAMENDEMENTFORFUND187BAYSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA TO TRANSFER $20,992 TO FUND
112 - TO REIMBURSE THE COUNTY FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF A PORTION OF A LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGA TION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE DAVIS BLVD
MEDIANS AT THE BROOKSIDE DRIVE INTERSECTION.
Item #16G3
APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FUND 187
BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA (RESERVE FOR
CAPITAL) TO TRANSFER $12,000 TO FUND 112 (DAVIS BLVD
PHASE I IRRIGATION RENOVATION PROJECT #60098) TO
REIMBURSE THE COUNTY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PROJECT AT THE
Page 344
September 27,2005
US41/DAVIS BLVD INTERSECTION.
Item #16G4
BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $3,000 FROM RESERVES TO
ACQUIRE COMPUTER SYSTEMS FROM THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR TO PUCHASE NEW COMPUTER SYSTEM
THROUGH THE COUNTY IT, (FUND 187- BAYSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE)
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR APPROVING
PAYMENT TO ATTEND THE NAACP ANNUAL FREEDOM
FUND BANQUET ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 15,2005 AT THE
ELKS LODGE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $55.00, FUNDS TO BE
HELD AT THE ELKS LODGE, 3950 RADIO ROAD, NAPLES
FLORIDA PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET, TO REPRESENT COLLIER COUNTY AS
COMMISSIONER OF DISTRICT I
Item # 16H2
REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
ATTENDANCE AT THE ONE BY ONE LEADERSHIP
FOUNDATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA ON FRIDAY,
SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 FROM NOON-3:00 AT THE ONE STOP
CENTER, 750 5TH STREET SOUTH IN IMMOKALEE, AT A
COST OF $10.00. PUBLIC PURPOSE: TO LEARN ABOUT A
PRISONER REENTRY/REINTEGRATION PROGRAM UNDER A
CONTRACT OF THE IMMOKALEE WEED AND SEED.
Page 345
September 27, 2005
Item #16H3
REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
ATTENDANCE AT THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT BOARD'S ANNUAL RETREAT AWARDS
DINNER ON FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 AT THE MARCO
ISLAND HILTON BEACH RESORT, 560 SOUTH COLLIER
BOULEVARD, MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA AT A COST OF
$25.00 FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE AWARDS CEREMONY
AND TO REPRESENT COUNTY DISTRICT 5.
Item #16H4
REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
ATTENANCE AT THE WAKE UP NAPLES BREAKFAST, ON
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2005 AT THE NAPLES
HILTON, 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL N, NAPLES, FLORIDA FOR
THE AMOUNT OF $17.00. PUBLIC PURPOSE: TO MEET AND
SUPPORT THE COUNTY'S CHAMBER MEMBERS AND
REPRESENT DISTRICT 5.
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 346
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
.September 27, 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. August 13,2005_- August 19,2005.
2. August 20, 2005 - August 26,2005.
3. August 27,2005_- September 2,2005.
4. September 3,2005 - September 9,2005.
B. Districts:
1. Collier Soil & Water Conservation District: Proposed Budget for 2005 _
2006; Public Facilities Report; Schedule of Regular Meetings for 2005 _
2006; District Map FY05 - 06; Description of Outstanding Bonds; List
of Current Board Members.
2. Cedar Hammock Community Development District: Agenda for May 9,
2005; Minutes of May 9, 2005; Proposed Budge Fiscal Year 2006;
Memorandum of Voting Conflict for Frank Lorenzo Reynolds dated June
27,2005; Memorandum of Voting Conflict for John Francis Stanley.
C. Minutes:
1. Collier County Planning Commission: Revised Agenda for August 18,
2005; Agenda for September 1, 2005; Minutes of July 21,2005.
2. Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of March 24,
2005; Agenda for March 24, 2005; Minutes of April 23, 2005; Amended
Notice of Meeting & Agenda for April 23, 2005; Minutes of May 26,
2005; Agenda for May 26,2005.
3. Productivity Committee: Minutes of June 15,2005.
4. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U.: Agenda for October 6, ,2005; Minutes of
August 16,2005.
5. Caribbean Gardens Blue Ribbon Committee: Minutes of July 21, 2005.
H:\DATA\Melanie\2005 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE\September 27,2005 Misc.
Crsp..doc
6. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Agenda for June 15,2005;
Minutes of June 15,2005.
7. Collier County Airport Authority: Minutes of August 8, 2005.
8. Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee:
Community Foundation of Collier County Presentation Summary.
9. Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of June 9, 2005.
a) Inlet Management Sub-Committee: Minutes of June 3, 2005.
10. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of
June 13, 2005.
11. Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda for September 7,2005;
Minutes of August 3, 2005; Staff Reports of September 7,2005.
D. Other:
1) Collier Park of Commerce Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of May 19,
2005.
2) 4H Foundation Meeting Agenda for August 16,2005; Minutes of May 3,
2005.
H:\DATA\Melanie\2005 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE\September 27,2005 Misc.
Crsp..doc
September 27, 2005
Item #16J1
AUTHORIZE THE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING
DEPARTMENT TO WRITE OFF $514,328.80 TO COMPLY WITH
AUDITOR RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED IN THE
MANAGEMENT LETTER OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2004
COLLIER COUNTY ANNUAL AUDIT.
Item #16K1
AWARDING ENGINEERING EXPERTS FEES AND COST IN
THE AMOUNT OF 9,250.00 FOR PARCEL NOS. 141,841, AND
143 IN THE CASE OF COLLIER COUNTY V. PRIMERA
IGLESIA CRISTIANA MANANTIAL DE VIDA, CASE NO.03-
2372-CA - GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT 60027.
(FISCAL IMPACT $9~250.00).
Item #16K2
AWARDING ENGINEERING EXPERT FEES, COSTS AND THE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS AS STATED FOR $3,650 FOR
PARCELS 142, 742A, 742B, & 942 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. PARKWAY COMMUNITY CHURCH OF
GOD, CASE NO.03-2374CA (GOLDEN GATE PKWY PRJECT
60027). FISCAL IMPACT $3~650
Item #16K3
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN REFERENCE TO FLORIDA
STATE UNDERGROUND, INC. V COLLIER COUNTY, CASE
NO. 03-4177-CA, NOW PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH
Page 347
September 27,2005
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. GIVE
DIRECTION TO COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING THE
LITIGATION - COUNTY TO RELEASE A RETAINAGE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $113~877.14 TO FSU WITHOUT INTEREST.
Item #16K4
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGEMENT FOR PARCELS 118 AND
718 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V RAFAEL
LIY, ET AL., CASE NO.05-752-CA (COLLIER BLVD 951
PROJECT 65061). (FISCAL IMPACT $54~397.50)
Item #16K5
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGEMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $124,670.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
PARCELS 108 AND 708 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V LOUIS CERMINARA, ET AL. CASE NO. 05-0620-
CA (COUNTY ROAD 951 PROJECT NO. 65061). (FISCAL
IMPACT: $58~987.38)
Item #16K6
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGEMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $221,300.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
Page 348
September 27, 2005
PARCELS 107 AND 707 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. LOUIS CERMINARA, ET AL. CASE NO.05-0620-
CA (COUNTY ROAD 951 PROJECT NO. 65061). (FISCAL
IMPACT: $73~300.26)
Item #16K7
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGEMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $129,500.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
PARCESL106 AND 706 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. LOUIS CERMINARA, ET AL. CASE NO. 05-0620-
CA (COUNTY ROAD 951 PROJECT NO. 65061). (FISCAL
IMPACT: $63~186.22)
Item #16K8
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $156,500.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
PARCELS 109 AND 709 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. SUSAN C. HALLOCK, ET AL. CASE NO. 05-0646-
CA (COUNTY ROAD 951 PROJECT NO. 65061). (FISCAL
IMPACT: $70~777.04)
Item #16K9 - CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 11,2005 BCC
MEETING
Page 349
September 27,2005
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT AFTER OCTOBER 1,2005
COMPELLING JC DRAINFIELD REPAIR, INC., ITS
PRINCIPLES, AFFILIATE ENTITIES OR PERSONS, OR ANY
COMBINATION THEREOF, TO COMPLY WITH COLLIER
COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 03-18, CODIFIED AS CHAPTER
134, ARTICLE IX OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
PURSUIT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF ALL COSTS AND FEES
DUE AND OWING TO COLLIER COUNTY UNDER CHAPTER
134~ ARTICLE IX AND AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.
Item #16K10
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $118,567.35 TO
TRANSFER THE BALANCE OF THE FUNDS FROM FUND 652
RESERVES TO ITS OPERATING BUDGET AND TO TRANSFER
THE TOTAL AMOUNT COLLECTED IN EXCESS OF
$108,309.66 (THE STATUTORILY MANDATED AMOUNT
THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MUST
FUND THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY).
Item #16K11 - Move To Item #10G
Item #16K12
APPROVED SETTLEMENT PRE-LITIGATION AND PRIOR TO
MEDIATION PURSUANT TO THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION PROCEDURES IN COUNTYWIDE PAVED
SHOULDERS AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS CONTRACT
03-3528 WITH BETTER ROADS, INC. FOR FULL AND FINAL
SETTLEMENT OF ALL OUTSTANDING LIQUIDATED
Page 350
September 27, 2005
DAMAGES CLAIMS IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000.00 TO BE
PAID TO BETTER ROADS, INC.
Item #16K13
SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO ARBITRATION--MEDIATION IN
THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED: CPOC REALTY, LLC V. THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY,
IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO.: 04-5636-CA FOR
$20~000.00.
Item #17 A - Moved To Item #7C
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2005-47: ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING SCHEDULE FOUR OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER
74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES (THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLILDATED
IMPACT FEE ORDINACE), TO REFLECT THE AMENDED
RATES SET FORTH IN THE IMPACT FEE STUDY, PROVIDING
FOR THE INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE IMPACT
FEE STUDY ENTITLED CORRECTIONAL IMPACT FEE
STUDY, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING
METHODOLOGY FOR THE ANNUAL INDEXING
ADJUSTMENT TO THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT
FEE RATES, AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE
DATE OF NOVEMBER 1~ 2005.
Item #17C
Page 351
September 27,2005
ORDINANCE 2005-48: FRANK CLESEN & SONS, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY WILLIAM L. HOOVER, OF HOOVER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO
COMMERICAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) TO
AMEND THE CLESEN PUD, PURSUANT TO THE
SUNSETTING PROVISIONS OF THE LDC, TO UPDATE THE
PUD DOCUMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT
LDC PUD REQUIREMENTS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF PINE RIDGE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY
1,000 FEET EAST OF THE WHIPPOORWILL LANE AND PINE
RIDGE ROAD INTERSECTION, IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA. THIS
PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 4.33 ACRES.
Item # 17D - CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 11, 2005 BCC
MEETING
TO REPEAL AND REPLACE THE ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AND
THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD (ITEM CONTINUED
FROM THE SEPTEMBER 13~ 2005)
Item #17E - Moved To Item #8F
Page 352
September 27, 2005
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:06 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~w.~
FRED W. COYLE, airman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E~ B~O,GK, CLERK
_ :'~:J" L'~,;f';jl) """;
B ~,J' ,~(jt12'&
1'~~,IX Chfll,
Iflllll6ilc~ .... ',' I
These minut~~.::~~.t~"'oved by the Board on~J 2Do~, as
J
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 353