BCC Minutes 10/11/2005 R
October 11, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 11, 2005
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Derek J ohnssen, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tì"
"'''",
,',
/
_0;"" , \
..~~="
AGENDA
October 11, 2005
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle, Chairman, District 4
Frank Halas, Vice-Chairman, District 2
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
Page 1
October 11, 2005
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING 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. Pastor Roy Shuck, Faith Community Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. September 8, 2005 - BCC/CRA Meeting
C. September 8, 2005 - BCC/Budget Hearing
D. September 13,2005 - BCC Regular Meeting
E. September 19,2005 - BCC/Emergency Meeting Tropical Storm Rita
F. September 20, 2005 - BCC/PUD Audit Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
5 Years
Page 2
October 11,2005
~--"~-"""""'~-'-
1) William Arthur, Golden Gate Community Center Advisory
Committee
2) William Dempsey, Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board
3) John Ribes, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
10 Years
1) Charles VanGelder, Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating October 15, 2005, as NAACP Freedom Fund Day.
To be accepted by LaVerne Franklin, Treasurer, NAACP; and Irene
Williams, Secretary, NAACP.
B. Proclamation designating October 20, 2005, as Lights On Afterschool! Day.
To be accepted by Lisa Morse, Vice President of Operations, Boys & Girls
Club of Collier County.
C. Proclamation designating October 11,2005, as League of Women Voters'
Day. To be accepted by Sheilah Crowley, President, League of Women
V oters of Collier County.
D. Proclamation designating October 23 - 31, 2005, as "Red Ribbon Week" in
Collier County, Florida. To be accepted by Sheriff Don Hunter, Collier
County Sheriffs Department.
E. Proclamation designating October II, 2005, as Mr. James Rozzi Day. To be
accepted by James Rozzi.
F. Proclamation designating October 15,2005, as National Latino AIDS
Awareness Day. To be accepted by Scott Tims, HIV/Aids Program
Manager, Collier County Health Department.
5. PRESENTATIONS
Page 3
October 11, 2005
._----~
A. Presentation of the Exemplary Public Service A ward to Representative J.
Dudley Goodlette. To be presented by Chris Holley, Executive Director of
the Florida Association of Counties.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Robert Pritt to discuss dock permitting
requirements for seawalls, riprap and boat docks.
B. Public Petition request by Jeanne Benefico and Lydia Botten to discuss fee
structure for Beach Parking.
C. Public petition request by J. Michael Mastej to discuss extended work hours
for Collier Regional Medical Center Construction Project PUDZ-03-AR-
4674.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1 :00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item continued from the September 27 ~ 2005 BCC Meetin2:. This
item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided bv 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.
B. This item was continued from the Julv 26~ 2005 BCC meetin2: and is
reQuested to be further continued to the October 25~ 2005 meetin2: due
to an advertisin2: issue. This item requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2004-
AR-6384 Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovahs Witnesses, represented by
Mike Landy, of Landy Engineering, Inc. requesting a Conditional Use in the
Estates zoning district for an additional church building pursuant to Table 2
Page 4
October 11, 2005
of Section 2.04.03 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The
proposed Conditional Use will replace the existing CU-96-12 (E) Ordinance
Number 97-440. The new church building is proposed to be 4,400 square
feet. The property consisting of 5.15 acres, is located at 3480 Golden Gate
Boulevard S.W., Tract 81, Golden Gate Estates Unit No.4, in Section 11,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Naples,Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn and ex parte
communication be disclosed. PUDA-2005-AR-7l52; Valewood Properties,
LLC, represented by Bruce Tyson of Wilson Miller, Inc., requesting an
amendment to the Quail II Planned Unit Development (PUD) to amend a
tract designation from commercial to residential use, allowing for an
additional 152 dwelling units, raising the total allowable units to 512 units.
The new R-l tract provides development standards for the subject site. The
subject property is approximately 21.74 acres located north of Immokalee
Road (CR 846), approximately mile east of the 1-75 interchange in Section
26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Santa Barbara Landings
PUD, St. George Group, Corporation, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, of
Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a rezone from Residential
Multiple-Family-6 (RMF-6) to Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) to be known as the Santa Barbara Landings PUD for property
located at the southeast corner of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard,
in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
C. This item is bein2: reQuested to be continued to the October 25~ 2005
BCC Meetin2:. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided bv 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
Page 5
October 11,2005
PUD). The property 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)
D. This item is bein2: reQuested to be continued to the October 25~ 2005
BCC Meetin2:. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDEX-2005-AR-
7832 Hammock Woods LLC, represented by David Underhill, P.E., of
Banks Engineering, Inc., is requesting a 2-year extension of the Sierra
Meadows PUD. The subject property, consisting of 90.8 acres, is located at
the southwest corner of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard,
in Section 22, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
E. This item was continued from the September 27 ~ 2005 BCC Meetin2:. 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-_.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Historical/ Archaeological Preservation
Board.
B. To appoint a Commissioner to serve on the County Canvassing Board for
the 2006 Elections.
C. Appointment of members to the Board of Building Adjustments and
Appeals.
D. Appointment of member to the Collier County Airport Authority.
E. Appointment of member to the Immokalee EZDA/CRA Advisory Board.
F. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee.
G. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. after Item lOB. This item continued
from the September 27 ~ 2005 BCC Meetin2:. The Annual Performance
Appraisal for the County Attorney.
Page 6
October 11, 2005
.'..- --"'-'-~"'--'~-'--"-
H. Appointment of member to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
I. Support for continued State funding of the Horizons Primary Care Center.
(Commissioner Coletta request)
J. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution in support of the establishment of
the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority and that the Board act on an
appointment of one of the BCC members to serve on the Toll Authority
Board.
K. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m~ after Item 9G. The Annual
Performance Appraisal for the County Manager. (Commissioner Coyle)
L. Request to reconsider Sonoma Oaks PUD, PUDZ-2005-AR-7469.
(Commissioner Henning)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. This item was continued from the
September 27 ~ 2005 BCC Meetin2:. 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.
B. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m.~ after Item lOA. This item continued
from the September 27 ~ 2005 BCC Meetin2;. 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. (Len Price,
Administrator, Administrative Services)
C. This item continued from the September 27 ~ 2005 BCC Meetin2:.
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
Page 7
October 11,2005
from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Road. (Capital
Improvement Element No. 33, Project No. 60101). (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
D. This item continued from the September 27 ~ 2005 BCC Meetin2:.
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)
E. This item continued from the September 27 ~ 2005 BCC Meetin2:. Review
and approve the FY 2006 Annual Work Plan for the County Manager.
F. The Board of County Commissioners consideration of the final subdivision
plat is quasi-judicial. Consequently, all participants are required to be sworn
in and ex parte disclosure be provided by individual Commissioners.
Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Legacy Estates,
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and
approval of the amount of the performance security. Item to be placed on
Regular Agenda County Managers Report pursuant to Public Petition 6A
from Board Agenda of June 28, 2005. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development & Environmental Services Division)
G. Recommendation to award a construction contract for the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant 12 Million Gallons per Day Reverse
Osmosis Expansion to The Poole and Kent Company, Bid 05-3879, Projects
Numbers 700971 and 710221 for $24,373,000.00. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Utilities)
H. This item 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). (Marla
Ramsey, Administrator, Public Services)
I. Discussion regarding staff interpretation and implementation of a provision
in the Growth Management Plan pertaining to the re-designation of Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands to either Receiving Lands or
Neutral Lands. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development
Page 8
October 11,2005
-,~~,~,',-_..~~'--
and Environmental Services)
J. Recommendation to be authorized to advertise and schedule for public
hearing amending Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-75, as amended, the
Public Vehicle for Hire Ordinance. (Joseph Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Notice of Request for Closed Attorney-Client Executive Session. Regarding
Settlement negotiations and/or strategy related to litigation expenditures in
the pending case of Collier County v. United Engineering Corporation, Case
No. 04-3363-CA, pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Naples, Florida.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m.~ after Item 9K. This item continued
from the September 27 ~ 2005 BCC Meetin2:. 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 $5000
bonus to the Executive Director of the Collier County Airport Authority,
Theresa M. Cook.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 9
October 11, 2005
-.----.-
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities
for Tollgate Business Center.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Serafina at Tiburon.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Brynwood Preserve.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities
for Sabal Bay Commercial, Phase One.
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Santa Rosa at Olde Cypress.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Naples Lakes, Phases 1, 2, 3, and 7.
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities
for North Naples Medical Park.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Palomino Village.
9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Southwest Professional Health Park.
10) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for White Lake Corporate Park Phase I.
11) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for White Lake Corporate Park, Phase III.
12) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Whittenberg Villas.
Page 10
October 11, 2005
13) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign a revised ten year
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative Grant Agreement for
funding habitat restoration on Conservation Collier properties to not
exceed $250,000 over a ten-year period.
14) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Olde Cypress, Unit Two.
15) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Twin
Eagles, Phase Two, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
16) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign the Submerged
Land Aquaculture Lease from the State of Florida for two 2-acre plots
for aquaculture research with Florida Gulf Coast University.
17) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Serafina at Tiburon. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
18) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Tiburon Boulevard East
Extension. The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
19) CARNY-2005-AR-8413 Annie Alvarez, Athletic Special Events
Supervisor, Collier County Parks and Recreation Department,
requesting a permit to conduct the annual Fall Fest Carnival on
October 20, 21, 22 and 23, 2005, at the Eagles Lakes Community Park
located at 11565 Tamiami Trail East.
20) Recommendation to approve the application by PACE Center for
Girls, Incorporated for the Job Creation Investment Program and the
Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program.
21) 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
Page 11
October 11,2005
--_..-~~.~-----
._-,---_.__.,.~.."._.>
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.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the transfer of
property from the Florida Department of Transportation to Collier
County for public purpose. Estimated fiscal impact: $27.00.
2) 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.
3) Recommendation to approve the sole source purchase of ten (10)
above-ground permanent traffic count stations from South Atlantic
Traffic, Inc. in the amount of$65,000.
4) Recommendation to approve an Easement Agreement for the
conveyance of right-of-way Parcel No. 130 required from Colonnade
On Santa Barbara, LLC for the construction of improvements to Santa
Barbara Boulevard (Project No. 62081). Estimated Fiscal Impact:
$525,781.50.
5) Recommendation to waive formal competition and approve a sole
source purchase of Cartegraph VERSAtools computer software for
development of a right-a-way database management system for the
Collier County Transportation Division. Fiscal Impact: $30,000.00
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (1)
approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners to execute a Local Agency Program
Agreement with the State Department of Transportation in which
Collier County would be reimbursed up to $500,000 of the total
estimated cost of$642,500 for the design, construction, engineering
and inspection of Sidewalks Various Locations and (2) approve future
Page 12
October 11, 2005
fiscal year annual costs of sidewalk maintenance.
7) Recommendation to award Bid # 05-3780R to AgTronix and
Contemporary Controls & Communications, Inc. to multiple vendors
on a category basis. Annual expenditures are estimated to be
$250,000.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve a Right-of-Way Consent Agreement and
associated Memorandum with Florida Power & Light Company
permitting the construction of raw water transmission mains and
related facilities, within Florida Power & Light Company power-line
right-of-way from the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant
to the vicinity of Rattlesnake Hammock Road for the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant Reverse Osmosis Wellfield
Expansion to 20-MGD, at a cost not to exceed $35.50, Project
Number 708921.
2) Approval of an Interlocal Agreement between Collier County and the
City of Everglades City for the County to provide trash collection
services in the City.
3) Recommendation to approve Work Order # PSI-FT-05-04, to PSI, Inc.
under Contract No. 03-3427 Environmental Engineering, Remediation
and Restoration Services for Collier County to complete a Risk
Management Assessment at the Naples Recycling Center located on
the former landfill at the Naples Airport, in an amount not to exceed
$97,957.50, project #59003.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve conveyance of a Utility Easement to
Sprint-Florida, Inc. for the installation of telecommunication lines at
North Collier Regional Park on Livingston Road at a cost not to
exceed $27.00 -Project 80602.
2) Recommendation to establish a separate Collier County University
Extension Trust Fund for the acceptance and management of
Page 13
October 11, 2005
._~,..._--"'
individual and organizational donated funds; educational program
generated funds; and expenditures associated with educational
programming by the Collier County University Extension Center.
3) Recommendation to accept the Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation
and Safe Exchange Grant in the amount of$125,000 between Collier
County Board of County Commissioners and the United States
Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women and
authorize the Chairman to sign the grant acceptance document, initial
special conditions pages and approve necessary budget amendment.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award RFP No. 05-3868 Internet-Based Solution
for Purchasing Card Program to Sun Trust Bank.
2) Recommendation to award contract #05-3852, Design and Related
Services for the South Regional Library, to Schenkel Shultz
Architecture, Inc. to design the South Regional Library, project
54003, in the amount of $623,950.
3) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve after-the-fact submittal of an Emergency
Management application for a matching (75/25) grant offered by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs in the amount of$87,000.
2) Recommendation to approve budget amendments for the Isles of
Capri Fire & Rescue District for the purchase of equipment for a new
fire engine in the amount of $39,900.
3) Recommendation to approve Contract #05-3883 "Professional State
Lobbyist Services" with The Closure Group, Inc., (J. Keith Arnold
and Associates) in the amount of $66,000 annually.
Page 14
October 11, 2005
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended The
Friends of the Collier County Museum Wine Tasting Gala on
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at The Fresh Market; $25.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coyle requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended NAACP
Freedom Fund Banquet and Silent Auction on October 15, 2005 at the
Elks Lodge; $55 to be paid from Commissioner Coyle's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner to
attended the NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet and Silent Auction on
October 15,2005 at the Elks Lodge; $55 to be paid from
Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to amend Contract #03-3497, "Auditing Services
for Collier County" with KPMG LLP, to include a proposed price of
$379,200 for the FY-2005 Audit.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to Approve an Agreed Order for Payment of Expert
Fees in Connection with Parcel 125 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier
County v. G. Herbst, et aI., Case No. 02-5l38-CA (Immokalee Road
Project #60018). Fiscal Impact: $6,405.00.
Page 15
October 11,2005
2) Recommendation to Approve a Stipulated Final Judgment as to
Parcels 720, 920, 721, 921, 722 and 922 in the Amount of $20,490.00
in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Lord's Way Realty LLC, et
aI., Case No. 05-l055-CA (South County Regional Water Treatment
Plant Reverse Osmosis (RO) Well field Expansion to 20-MGD,
Project No. 708921). Fiscal Impact: $2,840.00
3) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcels 154 & 754 in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. Joseph Sannicandro, et aI., Case No. 03-2500-CA
(Golden Gate Parkway Project 60027).(Fiscal Impact $37,799)
4) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcels 155 and 755 in the lawsuit
styled Collier County v. Joseph Sannicandro, et aI., Case No. 03-
2500-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project 60027). (Fiscal Impact
$10,719)
5) This item continued from the September 27 ~ 2005 BCC Meetin2:.
Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit
after November 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.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
Page 16
October 11, 2005
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VPLA T2005-AR8037 to disclaim, renounce and vacate
the Countys and the Publics interest in a portion of the 20 foot wide utility
easement located along the tract line common to Tracts 7 and 10, according
to the unrecorded plat of Naples Production Park, located in Section 36,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East.
B. SE-2005-AR-7530: Scriveners Error to correct the legal description attached
to Resolution Number 05-156 that granted Conditional Use approval for the
Bethel Assembly of God gymnasium expansion.
C. SE-2005-AR-7607: Scriveners Error to replace Resolution Number 2005-34,
regarding Fidelity Building, Ltd., represented by Ryan White, of Site
Enhancement Services, who applied for a sign variance to allow Fidelity
Investments to retain their one existing non-conforming ground sign.
Resolution Number 2005-34 failed to reflect the changes made by the Board
of County Commissioners at the January 11,2005, public hearing for they
sign variance petition (SN-2004-AR-6501).
D. This item was continued from the September 13~ 2005 BCC Meetin2
and further continued from the September 27 ~ 2005 BCC Meetin2:. To
obtain Board of County Commissioner approval to repeal and replace the
Ordinance establishing the Code Enforcement Board and the Nuisance
Abatement Board.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 17
October 11, 2005
--.------.-.-.,...-----
October 11, 2005
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That means me too, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mr. Mudd. The Board of County
Commissioners' meeting is now in session.
Please rise for the invocation by Pastor Roy Shuck of the Faith
Community Church.
PASTOR SHUCK: Mr. Chairman, before we begin today,
would it be in order if we take a minute of silence for those people that
have suffered in the disaster --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Certainly.
P ASTOR SHUCK: -- in Pakistan, and Rita and Katrina in our
own nation, and all of us in our own way, just offer a word for those
people that might be surviving and those people that are trying to
survive our own natural disasters. A moment of silence, please.
Father, our heart reaches out to those people who may be under
those buildings or rubble of those buildings still yet today. We see the
pictures of children, of young girls that are
struggling to survive and pulling them out, women and men who have
fought against all odds. Our hearts go out to them as they are buried
within that rubble. For many, it may end up being their tomb.
And we would pray, Lord, that in our own way as we stand here
today in your presence that we would always be humbled by those
who suffer these natural disasters, this evil of nature that comes at us,
not because we've done anything wrong, not because we have been
immoral, but simply because of a nature that's gone astray.
And we know that there will be a day when it will all be
perfected. We believe in that. We believe that you will recreate it
perfectly, and we know that it is a result of our own fallen nature, of
our sin, our own self-destruction that has brought about even the fall
Page 2
October 11, 2005
within nature itself.
We would ask, Lord, that you would forgive us of that today and
help us to understand the environment that we live in and that we, as
leaders, do our best to lift up the fallen down, to give them a helping
hand, to reach out.
I thank you, Lord, for the Board of County Commissioners that
have reached out to the disaster victims as we watch them collecting
things for Katrina victims, and that we, as leaders, recognize that we're
here to take care of those who need help, the helpless, those that are
weak, that we're here placed in these positions of leadership to rise
forth as men and women of great character and determine that we are
going to lift up the bowed down, that we refuse to be swept over by
that which would either come from nature or from the immoral
decisions of man, that we will, with your help, rise forth and stand
strong knowing that we can do all things through Christ who sustains
us.
And it's in his name that we pray, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. I would like to remind
everyone with cell phones to please turn them off. Please turn off
your cell phones now.
Okay. County Manager, do you have any updates or changes to
the agenda this morning?
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, agenda
Page 3
~----"-
".~....,....,4"""_"""""·~"'···'·-'-·-
October 11, 2005
changes Board of County Commissioners meeting, October 11, 2005.
Item 4£ is continued to October 25, 2005, BCC meeting. It's a
proclamation designating October 11,2005, as Mr. James Rozzi Day,
and that's at staffs request.
Next item is add -- it's an add-on item. It's 4G, and it's a
proclamation to designate October 19, 2005, as the Naples Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce Hispanic Heritage Day, to be accepted by
Valeree Maxwell, the president of the Naples Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce.
Next item is to withdraw item 6B. It's a public petition request
by Jeanne Benefico and Lydia Botten to discuss fee structure for
beach parking, and that withdrawal was at the petitioner's request.
Item 16A13, please note that within the cooperative agreement of
this item, Collier County government shall be replaced in all instances
by the words Collier County Board of Commissioners, County
Commissioners, and that's at staffs request.
The next item is item 16A20, and that's to move to 10K, and
that's a recommendation to approve the application by Pace Center for
Girls, Incorporated, for the Job Creation Investment Program and the
Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program, and that's at
Commissioner Henning's request.
The next item is 16A21, move to 10L, and that's a
recommendation by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, to 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, and that's the Collier County consolidated impact
ordinance, by another name, in the amount of $42,966.29 for the Pace
Centers for Girls, Incorporated. And, again that -- that move to the
regular agenda was at Commissioner Henning's request.
The next item is 16B2. The staff would like to continue this item
till 10/25/05 Board of County Commissioners meeting. It's aF
Page 4
October 11, 2005
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 and Light, FP &L, greenway from Rattlesnake
Hammock Road to Radio Road, project number 69081. Again, that
continuation is requested by staff.
You have two time cert -- well, you have six time certain items,
but five will be done in and around 10 o'clock and then another at 11.
At 10 o'clock we will start to hear five items, and it's item 10A.
This item was continued from the September 25th -- 27th, 2005, BCC
meeting. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve a resolution approving the 2005 fiscal year
pay and classification plan and general wage adjustment COLA and
merit increase for the Office of the County Attorney.
That will be followed by item 10B. This item is continued from
the September 27, 2005, BCC meeting. It'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 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 news classifications, modifications, and/or deletions of
classifications and assignment of pay ranges for the proposed 2006
fiscal year pay and classification plan.
The next item to -- following 10A and 10B is item 1 OG. This
item is continued from the 27 September, 2005 BCC annual meeting,
and it's the annual appraisal of the county attorney.
That item will be followed by item 9K, which is annual
performance appraisal for the county manager.
And the final item to be during that 10 to 11 o'clock window is
item 14A, and that follows item 9K, and this item was continued from
the September 27,2005, BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to
approve a 3.9 percent, which is $3,490.50 cost of living increase
Page 5
'"-----_.~---
October 11, 2005
retroactive to September 17, 2005, the first day of the first pay period
in fiscal year 2006, and $5,000 bonus for the executive director of the
Collier County Airport Authority, and that's Theresa M. Cook.
And the last time certain item 10H, to be heard at 11 a.m., and
that is a 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. That's all I have, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Mudd.
Mr. Weigel, do you have anything?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing additional, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I will ask the
commissioners for any proposed changes in addition to those that the
county manager's already described and for ex parte disclosure on the
summary agenda.
Commissioner Halas, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, fellow
commissioners. I don't have any other information or anything that I'd
like to discuss on the consent agenda. And on the summary agenda, I
do not have any ex parte on any of the items there. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have no disclosures to
make under the summary agenda; however, I'd like to pull 17D, the
change to the code ordinance, for discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta wants to
pull 17 A (sic), which will --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, 17D.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 17D, okay.
Page 6
.,...._..._.~__~____~_H_k'..·.
October 11,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Changes to code ordinance.
MR. MUDD: And, Commissioner, that would go to number 8F.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 8F, 17D, okay. And you have no
disclosures, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have no further changes to
the agenda, and I have no ex parte disclosures for the summary
agenda.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no changes and nothing
to declare on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No disclosures on the summary.
Just a clarification. Is 8C and D being continued?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Both of those items, there is a request
that those items be continued by the petitioners, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And 7B as well?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, 7B as well.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And when we get the -- when you do
your approval of the agenda today, we'll ask specifically about 7B,
and then 8C and D, we'll vote to be continued by the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we probably should vote
before we approve the agenda.
Okay. All in favor of -- can we do this in one vote, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: You may, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve today's
consent, regular, and summary agenda with the continuance of 8B
(sic), C and D.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
Page 7
" .._-~-_...,._,~.._-
October 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With the other changes that --
MR. MUDD: 7B, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 7B, 8 --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 8C and D --
MR. MUDD: 8C and D.
MR. WEIGEL: And Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- with the other further
amendments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: For the record, I'd like the record to reflect the
date to which these items are continued to, pardon the preposition at
the end of the sentence.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the 8C to continue to
October 25th; 8D, October 25th. And I'm not sure about the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 7B?
MR. MUDD: 7B to October 25th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: October 25th. Wow, busy day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It will be a busy day. I think we've
scheduled the next day as a continuation.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 8
,..-.._._"~---~.,._-""-
---,._<---~..,.,._,
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 of this 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 consecutively 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).
""·'·-~-'--'"-'"'-~"'_'~·_"'__"_~'n.
".,., .&_..,'..,,-----~,.._~.- ,,-,
~"'-""-'"'--,._.-
October 11, 2005
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E & #2F
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 BCC/CRA MEETING,
SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 BCC/BUDGET HEARING, SEPTEMBER 13,
2005 BCC REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 19, 2005
BCC/EMERGENCY MEETING TROPICAL STORM RITA AND
THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 BCC/PUD AUDIT
WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Now, with respect to minutes of the September 8, 2005,
BCC/CRA meeting; the September 8,2005, BCC budget hearing; the
September 13th, BCC regular meeting; the September 19,2005, BCC
emergency meeting, Tropical Storm Rita; and September 20,2005,
PUD audit workshop.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are there -- there is a motion to approve.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Now, Mr. Mudd, that brings us to service awards.
Page 9
'_.._--_."---~_.~... -~,,_.,,-,.,--
October 11, 2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Sir, we, basically on a monthly basis, try to recognize citizen
volunteers for various advisory boards for the Board of County
Commissioners. And you have two five-year recipients and one
10-year. Would you like to do it -- you only have three today. Would
you like to do it from the dais?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll do it from right here, yes.
Item #3
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS)
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The first -- the first five-year advisory
committee service award goes to William Arthur, and he serves on the
Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations and thank you very
much.
MR. ARTHUR: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good to see you.
MR. ARTHUR: You've got to take pictures, too?
MR. MUDD: Certainly.
MR. ARTHUR: Say cheese. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Bill.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next -- the next five-year advisory committee
service award is presented to William Dempsey, and he serves on the
Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Page 10
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that moves us to the 10-year
advisory committee service awards, and the recipient today is Charles
VanGelder, and he serves on the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust
Committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is Mr. VanGelder here?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. We'll schedule it at another time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay. We'll schedule it at another
time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What happened to John Ribes?
MR. MUDD: He wanted to -- from what I understand, he wanted
to be rescheduled.
MS. FILSON: Yeah. He wanted to be rescheduled.
MR. MUDD: He needed to schedule at another time.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 15, 2005, AS
NAACP FREEDOM FUND DA Y - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that brings us to proclamations.
The first proclamation designating October the 15th, 2005, as NAACP
Freedom Fund Day to be accepted by La Verne Franklin, treasurer of
the NAACP, and Irene Williams, secretary of NAACP, and it will be
presented by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whereas, the National
Association of Advance (sic) of Colored People Freedom Fund
Branch (NAACP), will hold its 23rd Freedom Fund Banquet and
Page 11
---_.^-
October 11, 2005
Awards Ceremony on Saturday, October 15,2005 at the Elks Lodge;
and,
Whereas, proceed ( sic) this event will be used to ensure that
economical, political, and educational and social equality remains
strong within our community; and,
Whereas, the public is invited to attend and share in this
celebration of the freedom for all.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, that October 15, 2005, be designated as
NAACP Freedom Fund Day.
Motion to approve the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we're all going to be there.
Hey, La Verne, I think we're all going to be there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not going to be. My
apologies again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You still paid for a ticket.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On behalf of the taxpayers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: La Verne, do you want to say a few
words?
MS. FRANKLIN: Yes, thank you.
Page 12
._......_.,,--~,_..~.,--. --.-
.. -,.._""'_._,-_.~...
October 11, 2005
On behalf of the NAACP, thank you very much for this
proclamation. And, of course, everyone is invited to come next
Saturday. It's a wonderful experience. We're having the
Highwaymen, which are from Fort Pierce, Florida, and they are very
impressive artists who struggled through many years, and having got
their name because they could not sell their wonderful landscaped art,
and they had to put it in the back of the trunk of their cars, and that's
how they got the name the Highwaymen.
And it really is an investment. They used to sell it for $3; now
they're going for thousands of dollars. So please come.
And also, we'd like to say that because of your generosity and
your support, you know you're helping NAACP, but we have many,
many educational programs throughout Collier County. And this year
we are giving away new computers to our kids. We have about 3- or
400 kids that we really support throughout the year, and this is what
the fundraising is really all about.
And thank you very much for your support.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, LaVerne.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMA TION DE SIGNA TING OCTOBER 20, 2005, AS
LIGHTS ON AFTERSCHOOL! DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the next is a proclamation
designating October 20, 2005, as Lights on Afterschool Day, to be
accepted by Lisa Morse, vice-president of Operations, Boys and Girls
Club of Collier County.
Ms. Morse, are you here? There you are. Come forward, and it
will be presented by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, in the spotlight.
Page 13
-"..'_,~-,~~--_.- '''"
October 11, 2005
Whereas, the citizens of Collier County stand finnly committed
to quality afterschool programs and opportunities; and,
Whereas, the citizens of Collier County provide safe,
challenging, engaging and fun learning experiences to help children
and youth develop their social, emotional, physical, cultural, and
academic skills; and,
Whereas, the citizens of Collier County support working families
by ensuring their children are safe and productive after the regular
school day ends; and,
Whereas, the citizens of Collier County build stronger
communities by involving our students, parents, business leaders, and
adult volunteers in the lives of our young people, thereby promoting
positive relationships among children, youth, families, and adults; and,
Whereas, the citizens of Collier County engage families, schools,
and diverse community partners in advancing the welfare of our
children; and,
Whereas, Miracle I, II, and III after school programs have
provided significant leadership in the area of community involvement
in the education and well-being of our youth grounded in the principle
that quality afterschool programs are key to helping our children
become successful adults; and,
Whereas, Lights on Afterschool, a national celebration of
afterschool programs on October 20th promotes the critical
importance of quality afterschool programs in the lives of children,
their families and their communities.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 20, 2005, be
designated as Lights on Afterschool Day.
Done and ordered this 11 th day of October, 2005, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle,
Chainnan.
And Mr. Chainnan I make a motion to approve.
Page 14
"'--'" -........_--..~".._~_._--_..
. ,. . ~--"'----'".~--_.~-,_.
October 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Ms. Fiala __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- or 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: It is unanimous. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sounds great.
MS. MORSE: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Whoops, you need a picture.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you like to say a few words?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you like to say a few words?
MS. MORSE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Silly question.
MS. MORSE: It's our first proclamation. Sorry for not knowing
the procedures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's okay.
MS. MORSE: Well, I do want to thank you for awarding this
proclamation. This is an important event for us as the Boys and Girls
Club, but also in the Miracle Program. Miracle Program has 11
afterschool programs in school -- in schools, serving 1,600 kids every
day, with academic programs supported by teachers and by the school
district. So this day is really to celebrate that. So we appreciate your
support.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for your help.
Page 15
'''_"_~'''''__'___W_''''__'_'<>"_''''_~__'_"
October 11, 2005
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 11, 2005, AS
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS ' DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next is a proclamation designating
October 11,2005, as League of Women Voters Day, to be accepted by
Sheilah Crowley, president of the League of Women Voters. It will
be presented by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm one of them, right? Thank
you so much for being here. And I'm so glad you're doing all that
work in the affordable housing area. Thanks for sitting on the
committee. We really appreciate that.
Come on up. You can move across here a little bit so everybody
gets to see you. Thank you.
Whereas, the League of Women Voters was founded by Carrie
Chapman Catt in 1920 during the Convention of the National
American Women Suffrage Association; and,
Whereas, the league began as a mighty political experiment
designed to help 20 million women carry out their new responsibilities
as voters and encourage them to use their new power to participate in
shaping public policy; and,
Whereas, from the beginning the league of activist, grassroots
organization whose leaders believed the citizens should playa critical
role in advocacy; and,
Whereas, this years marks the 85th anniversary of the 19th
amendment which gave women the right to vote; and,
Whereas, today the League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan
political organization, still encourages the informed and active
participation of citizens in government and influences public policy
Page 16
---_._".._----_.,~.~
October 11, 2005
through education and advocacy; and,
Whereas, the league continues its tradition of educating the
public; and,
Whereas, the League of Women Voters of Collier County marks
its 30th anniversary this year.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 11, 2005, be
designated as League of Women Voters Day.
Done and ordered this 11 th day of October, 2005, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle,
Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I make a 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.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll give you this, Sheilah. And I
hope you'll say a few words.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations. You do good work.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need to get your picture.
(Applause.)
MS. CROWLEY: Commissioners, thank you very much on
behalf of the League of W omen Voters of Collier County for honoring
the service of our dedicated members. They have rendered many
Page 1 7
-,-"_...._.."-...,-~-.._~
October 11,2005
hours to the citizens of Collier County over the past 30 years
registering them to vote and educating them on issues of importance to
our county.
Today, League of Women Voters Day, your proclamation means
a great deal to us. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 23 - 31,2005, AS
"RED RIBBON WEEK" IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The next proclamation will designate
October 23rd through 31st, 2005, as Red Ribbon Week in Collier
County, Florida, to be accepted by Sheriff Don Hunter, Collier County
Sheriffs Department. It will be presented by Commissioner Halas.
And I think Kevin Rambosk is here representing the sheriffs
department to accept the award.
MR. RAMBOSK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Please step up.
The proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas, alcohol, other drug abuses in the nation have reached
epidemic proportions; and,
Whereas, it is imperative that visual unified prevention education
efforts by community members be launched to eliminate the demands
for drugs; and,
Whereas, Infonned Families/The Florida Family Partnership, is
sponsoring the Florida Red Ribbon Campaign offering citizens the
opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to drug-free lifestyles,
no use of illegal drugs, and no illegal use of legal drugs; and,
Page 18
October 11, 2005
Whereas, the National Red Ribbon Campaign will be celebrated
in every community in America during Red Ribbon Week, October
23rd through the 31st, 2005; and,
Whereas, Governor and Mrs. Bush are the Florida Red Ribbon
honorary chairpersons; and,
Whereas, businesses, government, parents, law enforcement,
media, medical, religious institutions, schools, senior citizens, service
organizations, and youth will demonstrate their commitment to
healthy drug-free lifestyles by wearing and displaying red ribbons
during this week-long campaign; and,
Whereas, the State of Florida further commits its resources to
ensure the success of the Red Ribbon Campaign.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 23rd through
the 31st, 2005, be designated as Red Ribbon Week in Collier County,
Florida.
Done and ordered this 11th day of October, 2005, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred W. Coyle,
Chair.
And I move that this proclamation be approved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second
by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is approved unanimously.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
Page 19
-.-------------.......
~·-_.'__u",._...___ _
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you like to say a few words
after?
MR. RAMBOSK: Sure.
Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. On behalf of Sheriff
Hunter, I'd like to thank you for allowing us to participate this
mornIng.
I think we all know how important Red Ribbon Week Is. Is
signifies that importance for our community to work toward reducing
or eliminating drugs.
The results, of course, can be devastating. It disrupts families, it
impacts our health, safety, and welfare, and it also increases crime in
our community, and we certainly want to address each one of those,
because the ultimate sacrifice is the taking of our lives.
So we'd like to thank you very much on behalf of the members of
the sheriffs office and the rest of the community in preventing drug
abuse in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Kevin.
(Applause.)
Item #4 F
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 15,2005, AS
NATIONAL LATINO AIDS AWARENESS DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The next proclamation designates
October the 15th, 2005, as National Latino AIDS Awareness Day to
be accepted by Scott Tims, HIV/ AIDS program manager, Collier
County Health Department. Scott? We're going to have more than
one person accept?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Come forward. Okay. It will be
Page 20
_..___...._.".·._._"'~.___.'.M_......,_~.__.'"___,~.._
<....-'-~.__._._.
October 11, 2005
presented by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Whereas, HIV infection has been a fact of life in most Latino
communities throughout the United States for over 20 years; and,
Whereas, in 2004, over 180,000 Latino AID cases have been
reported; and,
Whereas, while Latinos comprise 14 percent of the population in
United States, they account for 20 percent (80,623) of all those living
with AIDS; and,
Whereas, Latinos account for 20 percent of the population in
Collier County and 19 percent of the total AIDS cases; and,
Whereas, AIDS has challenged the Latino family in every part of
the country to find new reserves of compassion to increase their
political voice and to confront many difficult issues that for
generations have been deemed unmentionable; and,
Whereas, the spiritual life of our community has been challenged
to its core with religious leaders reaching out to advocate with families
who have suffered stigma and exclusion; and,
Whereas, October 15th will mark the third year of what has
become an annual observance, National Latino AIDS Awareness Day,
which is viewed as a day of hope for the future of the world without
AIDS.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that October 15, 2005, be
designated as National Latino AIDS Awareness Day.
Done and ordered this, the 11th day of October, 2005, Fred
Coyle, Chairman.
And I move for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Page 21
October 11,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you very
much. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All of you from the health
department.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would either of you like to say a few
words after?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Get a picture.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Get the photo first.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. My name is
Eduardo Rodriguez. I work for HIV prevention program of the health
department, and I would like to thank the Board of Commission (sic)
for taking the time to recognize this event, National Latino AIDS
Awareness Day.
We have worked very hard to promote this event in the
community, in the Latino community. We, the health department, and
our community partner, Planned Parenthood, and Mariom E. Fether
from Immokalee will be offering free HIV testing Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday.
If anyone would like more information, please, you can contact
me at 530-5392, thank you very much. Muchos gracias.
(Applause.)
Item #4G
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 19, 2005 AS THE
Page 22
October 11,2005
NAPLES HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HISPANIC
HERITAGE DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the last proclamation will be
designating October 19,2005, as Naples Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce Hispanic Heritage Day, to be accepted by Valeree
Maxwell, president of the Naples Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
And it will be presented by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Hi, Valeree. Please, come right up front.
MS. MAXWELL: I brought a friend with me, vice president of
the chamber.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine. If I may.
Whereas, the Naples Hispanic Chamber of Commerce will
celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month Wednesday, October 19,2005, at
the English Pub; and,
Whereas, the purpose of this event is to celebrate the Hispanic
heritage of the members of our community; and,
Whereas, the public is invited to attend and share in this
celebration of the Hispanic Heritage in Collier County.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that October 19, 2005, be
designated as the national-- as the Naples Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce Hispanic Heritage Day.
Done and ordered this, the 11th day of October, 2005, Fred
Coy Ie, Chairman.
And I make a move for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 23
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's take your picture first.
MS. MAXWELL: First I would like to thank everybody for
giving us this proclamation and for acknowledging the -- our Hispanic
community that we share with everyone here in Collier County.
I would really like to invite everybody to come and participate on
our Hispanic Heritage Day. We have a lot planned, and also we are
jointly sponsoring this event with Collier County sheriffs minority
affairs division.
And so please come out and join us, and you can see our -- we
have modiachies (phonetic) if you like that kind of stuff. And we're
there to have a good time.
I'm also joined by Mr. Michael Villalobos,
who's the vice president of the Naples Hispanic Chamber and recently
unanimously appointed, a member of the board of directors of United
States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Region 6. We're very proud
that he was given this -- he was given this job, basically.
But I would like to have him say a few words, and then I have a
special award that I wanted to present that Mr. Coletta said would be
okay if we did today.
MR. VILLALOBOS: Thank you, Valeree, Mr. Chairman,
members of -- the county commissioners, I want to -- appreciate this
opportunity. As Valeree stated, in addition to being vice-president of
the Naples Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, I'm -- also serve as the
regional director for the United States Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce, which represents 700 Hispanic chambers in the United
States, throughout the United States, and also Puerto Rico. We have
Page 24
October 11, 2005
about 7,000 Hispanic businesses and entrepreneurs that we represent.
And on behalf of the United States Chamber of Commerce, I
want to thank this Board of County Commissioners for recognizing
our local chambers who are doing their grassroots efforts in helping in
mainstreaming our local entrepreneurs' business, Hispanic
entrepreneurs and businesses in our community.
Again, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. MAXWELL: I have in my possession our very first ever
award that we've ever presented, and it just happens to be Memorial
Red Ribbon Award for the Mexican American that lost his life, a drug
enforcement agent, Enrique Camerena. He was also known as Kiki,
and this is how the whole campaign took off, and we thought it would
be appropriate, being that it's Hispanic Heritage Month, and in
response to our Hispanic Heritage Day.
And this particular award, I collaborated with -- this particular
award and the individual and organization that we're presenting it to,
with Captain Tom Davis, who is in charge of the minority affairs
division for Collier County Sheriffs Department and Sergeant Dennis
Perry, who's the president of the Florida DARE Association.
And, therefore, I would like to read it to you, and I would like to
-- I know the -- Sheriff Don Hunter could not be here today, so we
have his number two man, who's still here waiting, and that's Chief
Rambosk. I hope I said that correctly.
But anyway, the Naples Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
proudly presents the 2005 Enrique Kiki Camerena Memorial Red
Ribbon Award to Sheriff Don Hunter and the Collier County Sheriffs
Office for continued efforts in your Drug Abuse Resistance Education
program, otherwise D.A.R.E., in order to keep the citizens of Collier
County safe from the devastation of elicit drugs. October 11, 2005.
It is my immense honor to present this to Sheriff Don Hunter's
office and the Collier County Sheriffs Department.
Page 25
October 11, 2005
(Applause.)
MS. MAXWELL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE Thank you.
Thank you, Kevin. Is there something you wanted to say, Kevin?
MR. Rambosk: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of Sheriff
Hunter, who is representing us at the Domestic Security Oversight
Board today, he has created the vision for Collier County's drug
enforcement. Weare able as members of the agency to support his
philosophy and the integration of his ideas, and he needs to be
recognized and thanked for all his work.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Thank you both. Thanks.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE EXEMPLARY PUBLIC SERVICE
AWARD TO REPRESENTATIVE 1. DUDLEY GOODLETTE -
PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And next is a presentation to be made by
Chris Holley, executive director of the Florida Association of
Counties to our own Representative J. Dudley Goodlette.
MR. HOLLEY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
It's a pleasure to be in the chambers this morning. It's unique for me
to come back to Collier County, a community that I served for 10
years; three for this commission and seven for the City of Naples. So
it's funny to walk the halls again and mix and mingle with some folks
that are still here. Leo is the only hold-over, I think from my time.
And his hair shows it.
MR.OCHS: Yes.
MR. HOLLEY: On behalf of the Florida Association of
Page 26
October 11, 2005
Counties, I want to ask that any time you need assistance from our
office, that you contact us. Many of you participate in our committee
structures, and some of you attended our policy meetings this past
week, and it's important for you to stay active.
And, of course, as a new executive director working four months
on the job, you know, anything I can do to help, please let me know.
But it's certainly an honor for me to be here today to make this
presentation. Representative Goodlette and I go way back. I take a
very small amount of credit in his ongoing public service. I convinced
him to serve on the Naples Parks and Rec. Advisory Board. We were
members of the Naples Kiwanis Club back in the '80s, and I kind of
bragged that that kicked off his public service.
Anyway, on with the matter at hand, and that's to recognize him
as the exemplary public servant for F AC for this past session.
On behalf of the Florida Association of Counties, I'm pleased to
recognize a member of the Collier County delegation who has worked
tirelessly for counties throughout his legislative career.
Representative J. Dudley Goodlette was elected to the House in
1998 by voters in Collier County to serve House District 76. In 2004
he was elected without opposition.
Representative Goodlette has served on numerous standing
committees and select committees during his distinguished career in
the Florida legislature. He currently serves as the Chairman of the
House Rules and Calendar Council.
Representative Goodlette had received numerous awards from
F AC for his legislative work. They include the F AC Freshman of the
Year Award in '99, the FAC County Champion in 2001, and the
County Partner of the Year Award in 2002.
Representative Goodlette's colleagues in the House and Senate,
Republicans and Democrats alike, have great respect and admiration
for him. As a key advisor for House Speaker Allan Bense,
Representative Goodlette is often called upon to be part of the House's
Page 27
October 11, 2005
negotiation team on major policy issues before the Florida legislature.
Article V, Revision 7, pre- K constitutional amendment
implementation, medical malpractice reform, and constitutional
amendment reform, to name just a few, all policies that have helped
shape the future of Florida.
As in sessions past, Representative Goodlette was once again
called upon in the 2005 session to bring major policy packages in for a
landing. He played a significant role in growth management reform as
a member of the conference committee. He was instrumental in
protecting counties' interests on issues such as impact fees, county
charter preemption. He also fought for counties' positions on the pay
and go provisions of the bill, all very important tools that enable
county governments to better serve the needs of their communities.
Representative Goodlette was key in helping counties keep the
Article V revenue sources created by the legislature to fund
court-related responsibilities. He supported F AC's position on
protecting local taxpayers from increases in workers' compensation
costs.
Legislation filed this past session would have created a mini
workers' compensation system for first responders, costing local
governments tens of millions of dollars.
Representative Goodlette's legislative record is a testament to
good public policy. His actions speak volumes about his passion and
commitment to Florida.
As the organization that prides itself on being all about Florida,
the Florida Association of Counties is proud to honor Representative
Goodlette with its Exemplary Public Service Award by Florida's 67
counties and commend you for your work on behalf of the Floridians,
and we thank you for your leadership and dedication to public service.
If I can ask Dudley to come forward, please.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Turn it upright. That's better.
Page 28
October 11, 2005
MR. HOLLEY: And congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we see that?
REPRESENTATIVE GOODLETTE: Yes.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice to see you. My goodness, it's
been years.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE GOODLETTE: Thank you. I was
listening in when you set your agenda, so I'll be brief. I know you
have many important things to do. But let me take a second to tell you
how much I appreciate receiving this recognition from the
Florida Association of Counties and particularly delighted to receive
this award today from Chris Holley, an old and dear friend, not only
of mine, but of many of yours, and certainly of this communities.
And he's to be congratulated for being elevated to the important
position that he is in with the Florida Association of Counties. And I
think we're going to be well served because of his deep roots, not only
in the business of the Florida Association of Counties, but having
roots here in Collier County will be helpful as well. And
congratulations again, Chris, on that distinction.
I would also just mention to you, Mr. Chairman and members,
that most of you know me from many years ago, and I am a strong
proponent of home rule, and I think that's one of the reasons that the
Florida Association of Counties and I have had a very good working
relationship during the soon to be eight years that I will have served in
the Florida legislature. It is an honor for me to serve the citizens of
Collier County; 51 years of deep roots in this community personally
make it a tremendous honor.
But probably of all of the responsibilities that I've had, the
opportunity to pursue, in the state legislature, the most important, is
home rule. And the most important, I know that what you do every
single day is important to the future of the citizens of Collier County,
Page 29
-------
October 11, 2005
and I honor you and I acknowledge the enormous commitment that
you make at the local level.
And I think that the most important decisions that are made in the
State of Florida many times are the ones that you make as you sit on
this dais on Tuesdays and every other day that you're also heavily
involved in the activities of the community, and I congratulate you for
that.
And I would be remiss if I didn't conclude by acknowledging, as
all of you know, what really -- where the real work occurs, in my
office and in many of yours, is in the excellent staff that we have.
And I'd like to acknowledge the presence here today of my
administrative assistant, Sarah Innis, and my legislative assistant,
Jessica Cartis (phonetic). All of you know them well, and you know
how well served I am and my district is and our community is by their
service as well. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Representative
Goodlette.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that brings us to public petitions.
County Manager?
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY ROBERT PRITT TO DISCUSS
DOCK PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SEAWALLS,
RIPRAP AND BOAT DOCKS - STAFF TO BRING BACK TO
FUTURE AGENDA (CONSENSUS)
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The first public petition is a public
petition request from Mr. Robert Pritt to discuss dock permitting
requirements for seawalls, riprap, and boat docks.
MR. PRITT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Page 30
-" ~--_._~.,._-,..-.,,-_.--
^-_......---------~.---~-_..
October 11,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. PRITT: Members of the Commission, my name is Bob
Pritt. I'm with Roetzel & Andress law firm. I'm here on behalf of
some dock contractors. I'm not sure any of them are here in the room
today. Oh, there they are.
We've had some problems with dock permitting, and I want to
emphasize that it's not necessarily the fault of the county. There are
some glitches that we would like to have addressed. And I think you
have my letter from September 27th in your file.
And just for the record, I'd like to read portions of it just to
explain to you what the situation is. What actually caused us to come
here today is, the environmental services staff has indicated that it will
require all applicants to obtain a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit
and a Florida DEP permit whenever necessary prior to approving the
building permit application.
It takes a long time to get a permit and even a long time to find
out that you don't need a permit from the federal and state agencies at
some times.
So we we've taken a look at some of the other governments. For
example, Lee County has in its ordinance simply, permits issued in
accordance with this chapter -- this has to do with marine permitting --
or development orders for work in the unincorporated area of the
county do not eliminate the need to obtain all applicable state and
federal agency permits. County approval does not constitute a
property right. So there is an example of how your sister county
handled that situation.
I'm not saying it's better or worse; however, in your own
ordinance you have a provision that is attached also that indicates that
where the proposed use or development requires state or federal
development orders or permits prior to use or development, such
development orders or permits must be secured from the state or
federal agencies prior to the commencement of any construction
Page 31
."'-,~-
October 11, 2005
and/or development, including any changes in the land configuration
and land preparation. That has been interpreted to mean prior to the
issuance of the building permit by your staff.
So our -- our dock permitting or our dock -- marine contractors
and so on are very concerned about the issuance of the permits. You
in your own ordinance say that the state or federal permit has to be
issued prior to the issuance of the local permit.
So we kind of thought about, well, what could we possibly do
about this. And I looked at three potential alternatives, and the -- kind
of the favorite alternative is something that I think, from just brief
discussions with Joe Schmitt of your staff, I think is something that
might be workable, and that's what's going on in Pinellas County and
in Cape Coral, and that is to enter into a contract with the -- or
interlocal agreement, I guess it's called, with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for dock permitting whereby the Corps of Engineers would
delegate the authority over their generalized permits. And we're only
talking -- we are only talking about the single-family residential types
of docks.
But those are -- we understand that the federal government, the
Corps of Engineers is not really nuts about having to go through
individual dock applications itself, even though it has jurisdiction to
do so. And the theory then would be that it could be delegated to the
local agency, that is to the county, and the county could be in charge
of doing that.
Now, that has some good things about it. First of all, the county's
being blamed anyhow for slow permits and so on. You know, nobody
calls the federal government. They call their local government.
Secondly, you're kind of, through your -- through your ordinance,
you're kind of doing that anyhow by saying that no local permit until
you get a state or federal permit, so you might as well be getting the
money for it and do the issuance of the permit.
These are all -- I shouldn't say all -- most of them are fairly cut
Page 32
October 11, 2005
and dried and something that the local government is very used to
doing. And so if you had the delegation from the federal government,
you should be able to get the responsibility but also the --
responsibility that your staff, I think, is very capable of handling, and
also the fees from that, and that's something that's negotiable with the
Corps of Engineers.
So I checked with Cape Coral again today. It's my understanding
they have a tentative agreement subject to it going through the city
council, but it's been very positive. I talked with one person from the
Corps of Engineers. He was not a person who was in charge, but he
was familiar with what was going on in Cape Coral, and he was very
positive at that time about this idea. And I believe that your staff is or
could be very positive on that also.
And we'd like to bring that to you to see if we could get the
commission's approval for your staff to go ahead and look at that --
that issue.
Obviously the other -- another idea would be to change the code.
I'm not sure that you're up to changing the code over one issue at
one time. Certainly would like to have you at least take a look at it.
But this delegation idea is something that might be a lot easier than
anybody thought. So we'd ask that you consider that favorably and
help us to get the permitting back on track.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Pritt.
MR. PRITT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any comments by commissioners? Oh,
yes. A whole bunch of comments. Where do we start? I'm starting
from right to left.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Halas then --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Mr. Pritt, some of my
concerns, I've witnessed on two occasions in the area that I live
whereby dock companies have took it on themselves to start tearing
Page 33
October 11, 2005
out mangroves, and when I challenged them on it, the first think they
told me was, well, I've got a county permit.
Obviously I didn't follow up and ask them if they had a Corps
permit. And I think this is where we have a problem. And if we do
come up with some type of interlocal agreement between community
development/environmental services and the Corps, that there's going
to be some way that we can track to make sure that mangroves are not
torn out in an area that -- as you covered, residential homes.
There was a series of about 80 feet of mangroves that went out
about 20 feet into the channel that were totally removed, and I don't
believe there was a Corps permit on that -- involved in that, now that I
look back at this.
So we're here to make sure that we can address the issues of the
docks for private residents, but we also have to take into
considerations that we do have a responsibility to make sure that we
take care of the environment also.
So I'm hoping that we can, some way or another, address this
issue so that it's a win situation for all, but that we make sure that the
Corps is involved in this, and hopefully through this local agreement,
this is maybe the path that we can go.
I just want to make sure that there is some assurances that we're
here also to make sure we protect the environment in this area.
MR. PRITT: Mr. Chairman, if I could just give a 30-second
response to that. I'm not aware of that situation, but certainly three is
a provision -- I'm not here for this particular issue. But there certainly
is a provision that is also state law for delegation of the mangrove
trimming authority from the state. I don't think Collier County has
taken advantage of that. I'm not sure.
I worked on it very hard when I was with the City of Sanibel, and
they actually received a delegation of authority over mangrove
permitting, and they were actually able and still are able to monitor
that very closely at a local level. So that is something that certainly
Page 34
October 11, 2005
could be looked at also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to see this on a
future agenda, but my concern is, we already know that community
development's overloaded with work, and we know that environmental
resources, there are no resources in the environmental department. So
if it's -- I would rather see, personally, just do some wordsmithing
within our code, put the onus on the property owner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also agree. I'd like to see it
come back on a future agenda. Anything we can do to try to get rid of
some of this -- what do you want to call it -- public problem with the
pennitting, I think we can do it. If we handle it on our end, we should
take on the responsibility and do it. Very much like Cape Coral has
done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have two commissioners in favor of
bringing this back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Third.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have three commissioners in favor of
bringing it back. Are there others? Okay. Then it will be brought
back. It is supported by Commissioners Henning, Fiala, and Coletta.
Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, 15 November? Your 25th meeting
of October is getting to be quite busy. 15 November is your next
meeting after that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: My feeling -- my personal feeling is, this
is an issue we should address. It is not an issue we need to address
immediately ahead of some of the other pressing issues that we
already have. And we have some pressing issues that have to get done
before the end of this year. And I would not try to push it into an
agenda if we're overloaded on an agenda.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'll take a -- I'll take a look at the
Page 35
---,,--
---·'·--___..w._
October 11, 2005
.
upcomIng --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then you can advise us -- you can
advise us as to which -- which meeting is -- has sufficient time to
cover this adequately. You know, we don't want to run -- run into
another situation like we had the last meeting.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chainnan, again, for the record, Joe
Schmitt, Administrator of Community Development/Environmental
Services.
Just asking for guidance, do you want us to continue to work
with the Corps of Engineers as to whether or not we want to enter an
agreement in regards to what Mr. Pritt said about a regional
programmatic pennit?
We've been in contact with the Corps for the last several months.
We can bring this back as a regular agenda, but I just want to
know if you want us to continue to work in that direction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would include that in part of
my recommendation.
MR. SCHMITT: Which basically that is -- would be contrary to
what Commissioner Henning just said, because a regional pennit
would delegate that authority down to the county in order to issue
pennits that are deemed not a threat to the endangered species or any
of those other issues. And the Corps, the Jacksonville district, will __
through an agreement between this board, the Board of County
Commissioners, and the Corps of Engineers, would delegate that
authority if you deem it so appropriate. And we will continue to work
in that direction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I can just make a brief comment, and
then Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Halas, and Commissioner
Coletta want to address that.
My feeling is that unless you can demonstrate to us that your
department has the resources and expertise to take on that additional
workload, I would suggest you wait until you get guidance from the
Page 36
October 11, 2005
board to make any discussions on that.
MR. SCHMITT: Oh, I would not enter into any agreement at all.
That would be up to the board. It's just a matter of, what Mr. Pritt
is asking, because it takes so long for the Corps to issue the permit, we
hold on to the permit until the Corps actually issues the permit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yeah. We understand how the
system works.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The problem is that we're having
problems processing all permits in a timely fashion, and to make a
change that places more of a burden on you at this particular point in
time might be premature. And my feeling is, we need to get a -- get
an understanding as to how it's going to be handled efficiently __
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- if we make this change.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I think that would best be
determined --
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- at a future board meeting, and the
board can provide direction on that basis.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll go along with that. I think
that's a great discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree. I just want to make sure
that if we do have a local agreement, that there's some way that we
can follow up to make sure that everybody is in compliance in regards
to the issue of where docks are going to be placed and making sure
that we take care of all the other areas of concern.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta?
Page 37
'-"-"_."~'""'----'- -----~
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to see all our options left
open, and I appreciate the fact that Joe Schmitt brought this up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, good. Okay. Now, are we clear?
We'll bring it back on the next meeting where we have sufficient time
to deal with it properly, okay. And whatever that is.
MR. MUDD: And I'll contact Mr. Pritt.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay with you, Mr. Pritt?
MR. PRITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much for
bringing it to our attention.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let's try to get the next public
petition in if we could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY 1. MICHAEL MASTEJ TO
DISCUSS EXTENDED WORK HOURS FOR COLLIER
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
PUDZ-03-AR-4674 - APPROVED W/STIPULA TIONS
MR. MUDD: Okay. It's 6C. It's a public petition request by
Michael Mastej to discuss extended work hours for the Collier
Regional Medical Center construction project, PUDZ-03-AR-4674.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. MASTEJ: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for
letting me be here. Staff, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Mike Mastej. I'm the CEO for Collier Regional
Medical Center. I'm here to ask permission to extend our work week
on Sundays on our job site out at Rattlesnake Hammock and 951. It's
not the typical workday, which is 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., but we're
looking for an 8:00 to 5:00.
Page 38
October 11, 2005
It is low impact, low noise. We have left a lot of trees in the area
there ready to even further reduce the visibility and the impact of the
noise. Our only neighbor, who's here today, has no problem with us
working on Sundays to this end.
But more importantly, this project is very unique. I recognize the
issue of precedent setting for the county, but this is a unique proj ect.
It's a hospital. It's something that's very badly needed in East Naples.
As you also probably know, this facility has been delayed
through appeals for over two years. You may recall that there was a
tragic accident of the couple from Golden Gate not too long ago,
hurrying in the early morning hours to get to the delivery room in
North Naples, and unfortunately, there were some deaths from that
accident. Had we had a facility closer, who knows if the outcome
could have been different.
You know, it's not a condominium project, it's not a golf course
project, it's not a strip center project. It's a hospital. And I ask you to
consider that because it would help us greatly to bring healthcare and
get the facility open sooner.
If anything, some healthcare services are being lost in the area.
You may have seen recently the notification that -- the reducing the
hours on Marco Island for care. We will have a 24 hour, seven day a
week, full service hospital with obstetrical services and an emergency
room. So I would -- I would ask you to consider this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I think this is -- comes
under health, safety, and welfare, and we want to get that hospital on
line as soon as possible.
I'd like to make a motion to approve it, but to leave the
jurisdiction in the management of the Sunday opening and closing to
the county manager, where he'll have sole discretion to be able to
grant it or to pull it as the need rises. If a problem comes up, it doesn't
Page 39
October 11, 2005
have to come back to the commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a different proposal. I
understand the predicament you're in. But I think that if you came up
with working overtime after the normal working hours Monday
through Saturday, I would go fullheartedly with that, because I think
that would be less of an impact in the area whereby you could work
till 10 a.m. -- or excuse me, 10:00 p.m. at night, cut it off at either 9:30
or 10:00 p.m.
I think that's a better alternative than working on Sunday. That's
my feeling.
MR. MASTEl: I think one of the problems -- I do have our
contractor here with us. But it's daylight hours as we speak right now,
and it's a matter of being able to see what they're doing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think you could put up lights,
floodlights to address that issue, just like they do when they have road
construction crews. So I think that would be better than working on
Sunday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've kept close watch over this,
over this project. I haven't had a complaint yet from any neighbors
about any of the trucks or working or noise or anything. They've been
very conscientious as they move forward. Even the neighbors that are
closest at hand have raised no objections, so I see no problem with
granting your request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And if I could, my concern is
with precedent here. And I think there is sufficient reason to permit
this request to come back and to be heard because it is different from a
lot of other construction projects, and there is no neighbor really close
by who is bothered by this. So I would not have any objection having
it brought back for consideration.
Page 40
----,- --"'"-<--,
.__.~._._"-~-~_..__._--
October 11, 2005
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I read in the paper
that Wal * Mart and a few other retail establishments was granted the
okay for working on Sundays. I don't remember that coming forward.
I don't know if it was an administration or not. Did I read wrong?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I've only -- I can do up to 15 days
by the land development code. And it has to be -- and they put it under
the category of emergency health, welfare, safety type issues.
Commissioner, I haven't given any of those folks Sundays work
hours.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: So if they're working, they're working illegally.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this will be the first time
since you've been a county manager __
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner. I've -- no, there's been times
when we had to put mast anns out at an intersection to try to get it
done on a Sunday so that it wouldn't run into a Monday, and I've given
that approval, as long as it's not around a -- you know, a residential
neighborhood, and they wouldn't mind doing it. So we've done that a
couple of times.
And I did give the Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage the ability
to do that for two Sundays because they were putting the decks
together, and it would be better if that stuff went on Sunday instead of
on Monday and cause all that traffic congestion, so it was an
emergency as far as I was concerned for the benefit of the folks that
lived in that particular neighborhood.
But outside of that, sir, I don't give these very often. And I did
let Mr. Mastej have it for 15 days. But I told him that he'd have to get
to the -- come to the board if he had to do any more than that because
it exceeded my authority.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, 15 days will just
make it on the next agenda, and our next agenda's busy, so I'm going
Page 41
October 11, 2005
to support the motion at hand that Commissioner Fiala put out there,
or Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Coletta. And Commissioner
Coletta, do you have anything more, or do you want to call the
question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. No, as a matter of
fact, I do. I just wanted to say, my motion wasn't to bring it back, it
was to grant it now.
Is that -- Mr. Weigel, is that improper? I mean, this seems like
kind of a mundane item.
MR. WEIGEL: No. No, it's not improper. As you know,
typically the petition process is one where an item is to come back at a
future time, and that may be the case in any event. But it's merely a
policy. It's not a law. And you all, working through the chairman,
can, in fact, deviate from that by motion and vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, my motion stands
as is, if the second hasn't changed, and that's __
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it hasn't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I will call the motion.
All in favor, please signify by saying.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Halas abstaining -- dissenting.
Thank you very much, Mr. Mastej.
MR. MASTEJ: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Page 42
October 11, 2005
Item #IOA
RESOLUTION 2005-352: 2006 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND
CLASSIFICATION PLAN, A GENERAL WAGE ADJUSTMENT
(COLA) AND MERIT INCREASE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our time certain at
10 o'clock. The first item to be discussed under that 10 o'clock time
certain item is number lOA.
This item was continued from the September 27,2005, BCC
meeting. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve a resolution approving the 2006 fiscal year
pay and classification plan, a general -- a general wage adjustment
(COLA) and merit increase for the Office of the County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there any presentation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Attorney, go ahead.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I'm certainly available to make a
presentation, as detailed as it may be. I have provided information
both in the agenda and separately indicating that -- the county attorney
proposed pay plan.
And I indicate this is a managerial request. It is nothing other
than determination of the office of what is good for the office and the
employees based upon experience and interaction with employees and
the loss of employees.
The county attorney pay plan, ostensibly, is distinguished from
the county manager's pay plan because of the $33,000 which is
allocated for 33 employees. You'll note that it is actually right at or a
little less than $1,000 per employee. That that be afforded them as a
Page 43
,,---.- '-'--."--",-...-.--- --,--~~~_.."..
October 11, 2005
merit increase to base salary; however, it follows the county manager's
plan of not being an increase to their actual salary but being computed
to the market -- yeah, merit point -- merit point salary, which is
something less than every attorney is making.
And a question may arise, well, what does this mean in terms of
the budgets for this year and for future years? This year the cost of
providing the merit pay to the county attorney staff base salary at the
market point is a cost of just a little over $2,000, which is included __
contained within the budget that you've already approved for this year,
this coming year.
Additionally, however, next year would be a cost for these 33
employees of an action, if you were to approve it today, of just over
$20,000 for next year. If, in fact, next year you followed the general
implementation of a, let's say, three percent cost of living and a 1.5
percent potential merit increase to pay, then next year there would be
a -- would issue a cost or an addition to the county attorney office
budget of $41,000.
I came to my recommendation to the board based upon the
realization that I am losing employees. And I have heard at prior
meetings, both recent and in the past, relative to county manager's
agency and community development services and from the Board of
County Commissioners, generally speaking, at budget discussions,
that the loss of employees, particularly ones with time and institutional
knowledge, is, in fact, an important loss, and should be countered
where appropriate.
The $20,000 expense that would be incurred next year, additional
to, if they -- additional to, if these same employee, based on their
merit evaluations, received a mere lump sum bonus, that $20,000
pales in relation to the vacancies that we don't fill and the fact that
other attorneys and other support staff have to pick up and operate and
do additional work beyond their regular work, and it is a problem.
It can, in fact, exacerbate to kind of a rolling loss in the future if,
Page 44
--"'---<~'^~"-"_._'"
October 11, 2005
in fact, the county continues to, as it must, contend with problems of
housing and salary comparison with other -- with other counties.
I don't lose employees merely to the other public sector as well. I
lose them to the private sector.
So to the extent that, as in prior years, except last two years
where employees received a merit increase added to base salary, not
just market point, but to the actual salary, we've already reduced that
somewhat.
And additionally, I would suggest that the long-term employee
who has institutional knowledge and history bring some efficiencies
and expertise to the job, and that's the gift that keeps on giving.
So from that standpoint, I made this proposal; however, if the
board opts to have a similar application to the county attorney as the
other county agency, the county manager agency, that is something
that is for the board to determine in the best interest, and I only wanted
to bring it forward as discussion based on my own managerial review.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel, the merit pay, what
I understand is merit is, you've done a good job. Here's a little bonus.
Is that how you see it?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, typically, it is -- it's a reward for work
previously done with the expectation that work will continue to be
done well and/or better with growth within the office.
My office has been one with a -- I'll call it a trim budget and a
trim approach, because attorneys -- our attorneys are expected to take
on additional responsibility. They comprise about half of the staff,
and -- a little less than half. But the fact is, is that career progression to
-- for them to achieve other different responsibilities within the office
I don't think aligns as well in county attorney office as it does,
perhaps, in many of the county manager agencies.
But I do recognize that there is such a thing as a bonus for work
-- for work done, and it does not necessarily mean that one is entitled
Page 45
--.------.
.__.._w.....^......_..._...._..._
October 11, 2005
to an increase in pay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So are you saying that if an
employee of your agency did not meet the expectation of doing your
job and doing your job well, would they receive merit pay?
MR. WEIGEL: No, they would not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I think that's -- my
personal opinion, that's fair and honest and equitable to reward people
for doing their job and doing it well. Thank you.
With that, I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, did you
have anything further to say? Your light was on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, my light was on, but I don't
want to belabor this. I'll just say that these people even work nights,
they take home extra amounts of work.
They're a prime target for rating by other institutions who would
love to have our employees who are already trained in how to do
governmental work, and so I'm just wholeheartedly in support of
approving this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So let me make sure that we got
clarification on this. We're saying that we reward the employees pay
for performance; is that correct? And -- or are we saying that we're
going to boost everybody's pay by a certain amount because the
county attorney is saying that he is not in a competitive field? I need a
little clarification on this. Is this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think what he's saying is
everybody's going to receive a cost of living --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and everybody that has
performed their job and performed it well is going to get a merit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Based on their performance. So as
Page 46
October 11, 2005
the attorney stated, there may be some people, when you have a
weighted system in regards to the organization of who's going to
receive a largest portion of the merit program, it would be starting
from where individuals had an outstanding performance of you and
then worked down.
What do we do about the people that are near the top of their pay
scale? How are we going to adjust their particular pay? Let's say, for
instance, you have people in the top 80 percentile of their pay, but
they're doing an outstanding job. How are you going to administer the
merit raise for them? Are you going to exceed their -- the top limit of
that particular pay, or are you going to say, you're doing an
outstanding job, I can only award you two percent merit pay, but I can
give you a bonus? Is that going to -- is this one of the ideas that we
have also here?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that would come into play if that facts
were applicable. I have a few attorneys that are approaching the cap.
They are not there this fiscal year in the sense that they would still be
subject to receive, under my proposal, a merit pay increase added to
their market point, not to their actual salary, which is higher than that.
But, yes, in one to two years, if those attorneys are still with the
office, I will have a few, more than two, that will be capped out. And
at that point, they would be subj ect to lump sum bonus or paid over 26
-- 26 periods, which are the pay periods of the year.
Now, additionally, my plan -- and your question is an interesting
one, because the plan that I have here would work with the FRS, the
Florida Retirement System, so that notwithstanding that they get this
bonus paid over 26 pay periods, that would be attributable to their
retirement; however, at the end of that year, it drops off and they're
still at that capped salary.
So it's a very short-term fix. And to the extent that we become
less competitive -- and it's not merely by salary -- but less competitive
in the community with the ability to bring in people who can live here
Page 47
October 11, 2005
and afford to live here at the salaries we provide, some of this is a little
bit Band-Aid at this point in time.
But in about two years, some of the attorneys will be capped, and
they will only receive a certain amount, and then at the end of the
year, they'll drop back to that cap amount, and that's where we'll be,
unless we at that time reevaluate and change the system somewhat.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is your capped amount, do -- when
you establish your pay grades --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- okay, and you have a range, a
salary range, and they reach that limit, does the limit change in your
pay scale, does it change every year to adjust the upper limit due to
the cost of living index?
MR. WEIGEL: It doesn't change every year. It is changed
slightly this year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what is that amount this year?
Is it 3.9 percent?
MR. WEIGEL: No. The 3.9 percent is cost of living.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
MR. WEIGEL: No, our change is far less than that amount. It's
an incremental portion of that amount for the upper salary of the
attorney range.
I can turn to it here, but I think it's approximately 113,000 is the
top salary that an attorney in our office can have. Based on recent
information, we obtained -- well, I had a seminar in Jacksonville
recently. They're hiring new attorneys in Jacksonville, Duval County,
at 80,000. Well, that's even -- that's above market point of what we
have here.
So the things I've attempted to do are incremental. And as I
mentioned, a $20,000 compounding cost in the next year, I believe is
very minimal compared to the losses that we might otherwise incur
with the vacancies that we have.
Page 48
_ _"_U_""~__""._..._~__..__
October 11, 2005
So I've tried to approach it incrementally. I've listened to the
employees, both the ones that have left and the ones that are still with
us. And I can't solve all the problem, obviously. But I thought that
this was an approach that was worthy of your review as well as my
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got one other question. Who
establishes your pay scales? Do you establish that, or is this
something that's directed down from the state in regards to pay schools
or attorneys working for the county?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's by a manner of contract with the
Board of County Commissioners. And so most recently it was
established on June 10th of 2003 when the board approved the
contract of employment that I have with you. So it's a matter of
contract, and it has a term in there -- terms, I should say, in regards to
my annual review and evaluation and things of that nature.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm talking about the employees
that are under you. How do those pay scales come together? Is that
something that's -- that you put together or is this directed from the
state?
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, it's not directed from the state. But what I
have done is looked at comparable counties, such as Palm Beach,
Sarasota, Martin, Charlotte, Lee, and getting indicators of pay scales
that are relative to the responsibilities of the attorneys, things of that
nature.
And we do this survey nearly annually. I mean, we're always
taking the pulse annually, but it's more formal-- a little more
formalized about every two years, because we don't want to fall
behind what the trends are, which may have certainly an application to
what's happening in the dynamic of our office as well, the dynamic of
the current employees and their leaving and the dynamic or possibility
of successful hires in case we do have a vacancy in the office.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So at this point in time what
Page 49
'-,-~..._----"_.__.._~.
October 11, 2005
is your pay scale for a starting attorney that would be coming into
your office, and what is the limit? And what are you suggesting for
starting salary under a new plan versus what you presently have? Can
you elaborate a little on that?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir. And this plan doesn't change the
starting salary. I believe that our starting salary is approximately
65,000. I'd have to turn to that. And it's very hard to hire an attorney
at 65,000. In fact, I found this past year that I could not. But that's the
starting range of the scale.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's the upper limit for that
attorney if he stayed on with you for, let's say, 10 to 15 years?
MR. WEIGEL: Well-- just a second. The potential for the
attorneys ultimately is 118. I said 113 -- 118, but it's not merely upon
time, but it's also upon responsibility. Although if an attorney has
been with our office 10, 12 years -- and as I mentioned, in
Jacksonville in Duval County, they're starting attorneys at 80. People
who have -- who have spent a lot of time committed to Collier County
community service certainly will be aware of what's around them and
opportunities elsewhere as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What are you suggesting as the
starting salary for an attorney and taking the upper limit to?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I haven't changed the starting salary from
$65,000, but what I do is in the annual budget -- and I think you know
I have a rather tight budget. I have no fudge factor to play with really.
But the fact is, is that based on attrition where we have -- where we
have an absence for a period of time or a higher paid attorney has left,
and, therefore, I have a position that's already funded at a higher rate
gives me the opportunity to hire someone new with less experience at
a lesser rate. But this is still problematic by virtue of the fact that the
new --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just tell me what the upper limit
would be. That's all.
Page 50
"_'_'U___,_._, ,., _ ,._.__,.___
October 11, 2005
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the upper limit -- the upper limit is
118,000.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Presently?
MR. WEIGEL: That is the cap.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what would you like to set it
to?
MR. WEIGEL: That is what I want to set it at. We have no
attorneys that are at that yet. They may achieve that in two years or
three.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page 11 of 13 in our agenda
packet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me -- let me try to quickly
summarize how I understand this thing works, and then if you can
correct me, please do so.
We have a salary schedule that is designed to keep us within the
competitive market, and periodically we adjust that salary schedule
based upon reviews of the market. And the last time we adjusted it
was 2003, if I remember correctly, David; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we try to make sure that the
competitive -- the ranges are competitive by incrementally adjusting
the entire payment schedule. And in almost all cases, that means the
payment schedule goes up every few years whenever we revise it to
make sure that we are paying competitive salaries.
Now, the other problem we have is cost of living, and we give
cost of living increases. And the cost of living increases are designed,
of course, to compensate for cost of living so that the employees are
not discriminated against or not harmed by increases in cost of living.
And then the third component is the merit increase. And you're
proposing that for those below the midpoint, that that becomes part of
their salary?
MR. WEIGEL: No. I am proposing that all employees of the
Page 51
-_.__._-~---_.-
October 11, 2005
county attorney office --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. WEIGEL: -- have a merit-based increase based upon their
evaluation applied to their midpoint market plan -- I was starting to get
the terms mixed up -- to the market point of their salary.
And so they're not -- if, let's say a person's making $100,000, if
they get a 1.8 percent merit increase, that's not to 100,000 but it's
something less than that, it's probably around 70,000 or like that.
We're only talking about $33,000 to distribute between 33 employees.
So in the context of the county attorney shop, it isn't real big, and it
doesn't magnify extraordinarily in the out years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand -- understand that the
total dollar amount is not worth arguing about, quite frankly.
The problem is consistency and how we treat county employees,
because right in just a few minutes we're going to have to have a
discussion with the county manager who does it a different way, and
we're going to have to evaluate the impact on the county to change
that.
And if we don't change the way the county manager does things,
we're going to have to explain to employees why we treat one group
of employees differently than we treat another group of employees,
and that's a difficult thing to do.
And I will make the observation to you that if I were an
employee and I were making $50,000 a year and you gave me a merit
increase based upon my performance this year and that merit increase
became part of my salary, although that merit increase is only $1,000,
I'm going to get that $1,000 for the rest of my years of employment
based upon my performance for a single year. That $1,000 then
translates into 12-, 15-, 20- or 30- or $40,000 for that particular
one-year performance grade, and I'm not at all sure that I think that's
the way to do it.
I think that we reward employees -- I like the bonus method.
Page 52
October 11, 2005
You do a good job this year, you get a good bonus this year. You
don't do a good job next year, you don't get a good bonus next year.
So my concern really is not with the 13- or 20- or $30,000 over
the next three years, it's with trying to explain to employees why we're
treating different groups of employees differently, and I think we have
to have consistency in this process.
And I, for one, will not vote to approve this until I know where
we're going with the county manager's salary thing, because I'm going
to be consistent in the way we treat employees, and I want to be fair. I
want to make sure they're fairly compensated. And I want to make
sure we have plans that will recognize the need to attract and retain
qualified employees.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And one thing we've been
stipulating all along is employers have not been paying employees for
the job that they do, and so then they can't afford the houses and so
forth. And this has been a maj or concern of ours. We keep
admonishing those employers out there in the community to pay their
employees enough so that we don't have this substandard type of
living.
Well, I think it holds true within our government as well. And if
this is what David feels is the most appropriate way to pay his
employees, then I'm all for it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, as a matter of fact, the county does
pay well above the average -- average pay scale in Collier County.
But Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're absolutely right, we do,
and there's a reason for it, and it's because it's a very expensive places
to live.
And I agree, too, with Commissioner Fiala on that, although--
and I'll accept for one time the answer of no comment if it's necessary,
but Mr. Mudd, would you like to comment on this in any way? Or
Page 53
~_....~---_.
October 11, 2005
you can use no comment and I won't hold it against you. But I really
would like to try to get a better balance of where this is all going. Is
this going to cause some sort of discrepancy within the County
Manager's Office?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. If you vote the way I think you're going
to right now, my -- when you get to lOB, I'm going to ask you to
change my pay scale to be like the county attorney's.
What the fiscal impact of this board is going to be, that $370,000
that you've been saving for the last three years that's been
compounding to over a million dollars will stop, and it will be
$370,000 each year that will continue to keep on giving. So it's 370
next year, that award, when you go to the second year, becomes
$700,000, because you -- and so it goes on and on. So it's not a small
change for the county manager's agency.
I will-- I will-- there was one statement that was made. Two
years ago, if you remember correctly, I made a statement to this board
that 72 percent of our employees were underneath the market point,
and we only had 28 percent that was above. And I made the statement
that it would issue better if we were more 50/50.
Well, last year we were moving in the right direction, and we had
76 percent that were below the market point. This year we're at 54
percent. It was in my annual appraisal, and I mentioned it.
So we are making the right movement as far as I'm concerned of
moving our lower end that's below market for their job to be above
that -- at market or above it. So we're probably at that 50/50 point
right now.
So we've made great strides with the manager's board-approved
pay system over the last couple of years, so we've made some
progress.
The one thing that you've got to be cognizant of when you put
that merit in, that 30-year into pay, that 30-year pay scale that you
have from mid to max -- and there's no way, shape, or form do you
Page 54
October 11, 2005
have to hire somebody at min.
I mean, in the county attorney's particular agency, he's going to
hire his attorneys based on experience, and he's going to make a
judgment call, is it going to be above the market value because we're
bringing that person on because the experience that they bring on and
their expertise, or is it a brand new attorney right out of college and
might not have passed the bar yet and they're still working on it, and
that would probably be a lower scale.
I do the same thing with our directors and administrators,
depending on what they're bringing on as far as employees are
concerned with expertise. But I will tell you when you compound the
merit in with COLA into the salary, that 30-year range gets to be
something less than 30 years. And I mean, you're now into a pay scale
to go from min to max in approximately 15 to 20 years versus the 30
years. So you do get yourself with a lot of employees up at the
maximum salary in a particular range rather quickly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas. I'm sorry. You
had a follow-up question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, yes.
I'll just be a second, Commissioner Halas. Thank you.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is a very difficult decision,
I'll be honest with you. I could have made the motion and even
seconded it when we first started; however, what I've heard from
Commissioner Coyle and from Mr. Mudd, he's giving me second
thoughts, and also what enters my mind is what we recently required
of our constitutional officers as far as trying to come into a certain
amount of alignment of what the county budget is.
I'd appreciate one more comment to try to bring everything back
into balance one way or the other from you, if you would, please, sir.
If you don't want to comment, that's fine, too.
Page 55
October 11, 2005
MR. WEIGEL: I'm trying to grasp the question, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you just heard Mr. Mudd's
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, yes, right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- comments. And to be honest
with you, they bear serious consideration. Is there anything that you
can say that sheds a different light on it than from what Mr. Mudd just
explained to us?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't want to be repetitive. I just think
that I have a -- I am distinct from the county manager, and I have to
approach the type of employee that I have, which are not employees
under the county manager. This is the legal component.
Separately -- I'm separately hired, and they, therefore, come, you
know, to the board separately. And this was my best managerial
recommendation, and yet still modest in regard to the county attorney
office.
In regard to, again, statistics tell us, yes, you can bring -- show
that people are coming up to midpoint or market point. Those are the
junior employees. But I hire no one out of law school, no one who
hasn't passed the bar. In fact, they need to have significant practice,
hopefully of local government, so that we come in more with ground
running than the long -- and we still have significant training, and you
can recognize that through my staff anyway.
But the -- I think that -- as I mentioned in a memo, rather than be
the lagging indicator where we wrestle with the problem a little too
late, I didn't want that for my office and -- where we've lost that
long-term employee or employees that have spent a lot of time and
learned a lot.
So I was truly looking at my office, and I was not looking at Jim
Mudd and his managerial application. But he has career progression,
as an example, for certain areas of his workforce where they can do
certain tasks, such as seminars, and get -- and three percent increase to
Page 56
-,~--~
October 11, 2005
base salary. I don't have those kinds of things, and that just happens
administratively, and his budget is built to be able to take care of those
things for the various divisions and departments.
I don't build that into my budget so that I can make awards. I'm
very hard-pressed to make even an equity adjustment if I find that
there's significant compression from a new hire of a legal assistant
coming in at X amount of dollars and the fact that I have legal
assistants that have been working for six and eight years who are at
the same salary as the new hires, or very close to it.
It's difficult to achieve fairness. I'm only attempting to do that
within that area that I have some ability to control. And, of course,
my control is merely recommendatory to you to approve that.
And if you don't, we'll muddle along and we'll do the best we can
as far as that goes. But I just wanted to be honest with my
presentation to you, so that it is an appropriate thing to review and
consider and collectively determine if it is appropriate or not.
And to that extent, we've had years in the past, many years in the
past, when we were losing employees, 17, 22, 24 percent attrition on
the county manager's side, many years -- several years ago.
And so we had to work like heck to bring things back. And I'm
concerned about that because we've got external factors now, such as
the housing, which is making it harder to go bring things back, and we
can't correct it all inside this house of salary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to -- okay, Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You had a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One question to the county
manager. In regards to giving bonuses to employees on a yearly basis,
that doesn't have any reflection at all in their FRS; is that correct? Just
their merit pay, what goes into the base salaries is based on their FRS,
Page 57
-~_.~.,_._"'...-
October 11,2005
and that's the retirement plan, Florida Retirement Plan?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have a -- we have a system
whereby -- we call it a lump sum bonus point, okay? And you'll
notice it in my charts. It says, lump sum bonus points. That point is
figured at 110 percent of market. So you've got to be 10 percent
above that market at the lump sum bonus point.
If an employee is below that particular point, we put the merit
into the pay, okay. So it is the gift that keeps on giving. But we were
trying to offset a large proportion of our population of employees that
were below the market point to stay competitive, and I believe that is
-- that is working.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, Commission Henning?
MR. MUDD: Now, if you get above that lump sum market or
point, lump sum merit point, you'll get your bonus in a check, okay?
That check is not in the Florida Retirement System. It is a check one
time for the performance that the employee did for the preceding year.
Now, department directors and administrators, irrespective of
where they are min to max only get a lump sum check, okay, bonus
check. They do not get anything in their pay for merit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Now, every employee of Collier County, except
for folks who are up against the max salary -- if your -- if your max
for your job out in the market is, let's say, $75,000, and you're a
manager of a road crew or whatever, and it's there, then we don't -- we
don't give COLA anymore max because we have a firm, it's Cody and
Associates that did it last year, that basically look at our -- and do a
survey of what the market will bear on our ranges, and we'll adjust
those.
And in our executive summary, you'll notice that in the white
range, we moved it at 2.5 percent, and that was all the scales in the
white range, and that's pay scale 16 through 28 or 29, if my -- if my
Page 58
-'<-~._--,..,
October 11,2005
memory serves me, and in the red scale, which is above that, we
moved it by 1 percent.
Now, Cody said my blue collar range I should move back 5
percent, but that's the lowest paying salaries in Collier County, and I
don't believe that's prudent, okay. I believe that is artificially let out
there because of some of the wages that the private sector gives to
those particular blue collar folks, so I believe we're okay in that
particular case.
So we do adjust those, and we try to -- when you get at farther
ends in the pay scales, we try to slow down the pay increase by
providing a lump sum bonus check instead of having it go into your
salary, which would then go into Florida Retirement System.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have Commissioner Henning
and Commissioner Coletta, and then we're going to take a break for
our court reporter.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I
don't know how you want to proceed, but it's kind of confusing when
we're going back and forth on this issue. To be fair, I think if we're
going to do that, we ought to have the county manager to present.
But with that said, I know where you want to go with this is try to
be equal and fair. I'm not sure that you can because there are so many
different issues about benefits. You know, some of the county
employees have uniforms that are provided by the county, cleaned,
provided, and I don't think, and I could be wrong, that we do that for
the county attorney. Now--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We could get them uniforms.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- my understanding with the
county attorney is they're on a salary, okay? I know many attorneys
that work a lot of weekends, or they're coming into work Monday with
a hell of a lot of paperwork for I don't know what reason. I would
think they're taking it home to get prepared for the following week.
Page 59
October 11, 2005
You know, I believe that we have a, on both sides, good staff, on
the county manager's side and the county attorney's side. And I know
that there are a lot of people that work for us fleecing Collier County
because they're cashing out and leaving. We need to address that in
other issues, but I think we need to address it today on trying to keep
as many professionals as we can, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm Commissioner Coletta.
That was Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I said, thank you. And now
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay. I thought you just
ended my discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We did. Your time has run out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. It was nice
to talk today.
Commissioner Henning, I agree with you. And I'll tell you what,
it is confusing, and I think the commission here wants to be able to
make sure that our employees are adequately compensated for what
they do. I know the county manager's office takes work home on
weekends also.
I'm having a hard time following this whole thing. My
suggestion, if the motion fails, I would suggest that we continue it and
have a chart made up by both the county manager's office and county
attorney's office. Make it a comparison across the board so we can see
what -- the effect of what we're doing. I'm totally lost. There's too
much information being given out for us to make a logical decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We're going to take a break, but
I'd like to make one comment before we do that you can think about.
Page 60
~"..._._-----
;..._.,-.,~-"..-_-~-'"-
October 11, 2005
If you're having trouble keeping employees or attracting
employees, it has absolutely nothing to do -- excuse me -- with merit
pay, absolutely nothing. It has to do with your pay scale. If the pay
scale is too low, we adjust the pay scale.
All the merit pay does is move the salaries faster to the upper end
where employees are then kept. It also recognizes good performance.
But all too frequently I find in corporations that people spread
those merit pays out so thinly that they really do not have the desired
effect.
But, nevertheless, if you're having problems attracting
employees, the way to do it is to adjust the pay scale. And I would be
happy to support that. And we'll get to Commissioner Halas's
comments afterwards.
We're going to take a 10-minute break for the court reporter.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you want me to say now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no speaking now. We're on recess.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're back in session, and
Commissioner Fiala (sic) had something he wanted to say. I would
encourage the other commissioners to let's bring this thing to a
conclusion. We've been at it for an hour on this particular item, and
we've got four more to go just like it.
So Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only concern that I have,
there's been some talk about putting this off, and I don't think we can
do that. I feel strongly that we need to take care of this issue today,
both areas. I think it leads -- if we try to put this off any longer, it
starts to lead into a morale problem for all employees, so I think we
need to address this and get it put to bed and move on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have two ways of proceeding,
Commissioners. We can postpone a vote on this until after the
Page 61
October 11, 2005
presentation by the county manager and then hopefully we will all
have a better understanding of the total impact --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and then we can come back on the
county attorney's--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- thing. Okay. Do I see
three nods?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'll table my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Very well. Then the motion
has been tabled.
And we will now hear from the county manager.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2005-351: 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,
MODIFICATIONS AND/OR DELETION OF CLASSIFICATIONS
AND ASSIGNMENT OF PAY RANGES FROM THE PROPOSED
2006 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN -
ADOPTED W /STIPULA TIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10B, and
that's basically to talk to the pay and classification plan for the county
manager's organization. And Mrs. Len Price, the administrator for
admin. services division, win present.
MS. PRICE: Good morning, Commissioners. Let me just briefly
go over with you the philosophy of the county manager's pay plan.
Page 62
'" -,...,._..,.._ I --.,,"--~.~>
October 11, 2005
Basically we're trying to provide a market based compensation
system.
Each year we make an adjustment to the -- to folks' pay based on
the cost of living, and that's calculated based on the changing cost of
living in the Miami and Fort Lauderdale area the previous December.
We also have pay plan maintenance which is to adjust for the
cost of labor. That would be to look at the market and see what the
positions are bringing in across the state and in some instance even
across the nation. We do a study each year to review our salary
structure.
And the third aspect is merit pay, and that is pay for good
performance the year before.
Do you have any other specific questions you would like me to
address for you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you just stated that merit
for directors and equivalents get merit pay based upon good
performance.
MS. PRICE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Here it says, merit pay
will be paid to all directors and equivalent positions and to all division
administrators in the form of lump sum payment.
MS. PRICE: I think there's a few words that are missing from
there, and that should be, as -- in accordance with the merit pay
program, which would only give merit pay based on your evaluation.
So although it says, will be paid to all, it should say, in accordance to
their performance evaluation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So do we need to --
MS. PRICE: If an administrator did not perform up to standards,
that individual would not receive merit pay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we need to add some words
or -- to this?
Page 63
October 11, 2005
MS. PRICE: That would probably clarify things, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The exhibit. Now, not all will
receive the cost of living increase?
MS. PRICE: Not all employees? Employees who are at the
maximum right now will not receive a cost of living increase. There
are approximately 36 employees countywide who fall into that
category. There's an additional 66 who will receive a partial COLA,
and that will bring them to that maximum point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, are we saying that their
cost of living hasn't increased?
MS. PRICE: We're saying that their pay range is at between 15
and 20 percent above the market already and that that is the maximum
that that particular job pays, understanding that there's been an
adjustment in the pay scale based on the market.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So they're 15 to 20
percent above the -- above their cap, their maximum?
MS. PRICE: No. They're 15 to 20 percent above the market for
each position. Each pay range goes from -- you know the market
point is the average --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. PRICE: -- for that particular position. Then there's a
minimum and a maximum.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Example, firefighter is -- well,
firefighter. I don't understand that because they should be -- they're
under a contract. Then let me go to a different example.
MS. PRICE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Manager of Pelican Bay
Service, the market point for him is 60,000, the maximum is 75,000.
MS. PRICE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And so if they're over their
market point but haven't capped out, they won't get their COLA?
MS. PRICE: They get COLA. They get COLA until they've
Page 64
..,,-~-',--~-~.~'""'-'--- .."._--,._~-
I ,,""-'-~
October 11, 2005
capped.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. I thought you said
market point. When they reach their market point --
MS. PRICE: If I said that, sir, then I misspoke. They receive
COLA until they hit the maximum of the pay range.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What about -- what
about your comment when they receive -- or if they're over 15 to 20
percent, which --
MS. PRICE: That's the maximum. If you've got 60,000 as your
market point --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. PRICE: -- then 75 is 15 percent above the market point, is
the maximum. And for the people who are there, COLA is not added.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. So if they're at their--
just to make it simple. If they're at their maximum, they're not going
to receive COLA?
MS. PRICE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, what about 66 employees;
where are they at in the pay scale that's only going to receive part of
the COLA?
MS. PRICE: Very close to but not at the maximum. So they will
receive a COLA that will bring them to that maximum.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But they'll receive
an automatic merit no matter what?
MS. PRICE: They'll receive merit pay based on their evaluation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. PRICE: And that would be paid in lump sum, because they
are more than 110 percent of the market point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think in here it says, the
ones who are at their maximum will receive merit.
MS. PRICE: Yes, if they've earned it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we need to correct
Page 65
October 11, 2005
that, where it says -- you need to add, if they earn it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if their performance appraisal--
MS. PRICE: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- says that they get merit, at that particular
juncture, when they're at the maximum, they would get a lump sum
bonus check for that past performance that last year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: There is no automatic merit just because you live
and breath and you're an employee of Collier County. It depends on
how your performance appraisal basically came out and how you were
rated by your supervisor and your job performance from the previous
year and that determines if you're going to receive merit or not. May
it be in your salary and -- or as a lump sum check.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, is that -- what's the
scoring on that? I mean, is it good or better or best, you receive merit,
or some merit? Or is it bad, worst and better?
MR. MUDD: No, commissioner, if you -- if you are -- if you are
satisfactory performance, then you would get a percent for your merit,
and I believe that percent is what, 1. -- 1.1 percent.
So if the person received a satisfactory evaluation with the
COLA and merit, they would receive 3.9 COLA, 1.1 merit, which
would give them 5 percent.
If you exceed standards, your increase for merit is 2.25 percent,
and that -- with COLA 3.9 plus 2.25, you're over 6 percent on that
gIven year.
If you -- if you're outstanding and you're at the top of the list, you
will get a merit of 3.4 percent, I believe that's it, and it's a sliding scale
based on how well they perform, on top of the COLA. And in that
particular case, that employee would get a 7.4 percent increase this
beginning year.
So we do reward performance. We also try to make that person's
salary sustainable with COLA so that it still can purchase what it did a
Page 66
October 11, 2005
year ago.
Now, I will tell you, our CO LA has lagged because we made the
COLA assessment from December of2004. That's when we take--
that's when we take a look at the South Florida cost of living
allocation. So that's what it was over -- almost a year ago. So you
know that particular item.
But when somebody gets at the max of their pay range, if you
also look at pay -- and the policy is on page 23 of 25 and it lays out
the general wage adjustments of the pay plan maintenance and the
merit, it's on exhibit 2. You'll also notice that when you talk about pay
plan maintenance for those folks that Commissioner Henning talks
about that's at max. And as of this pay scale this year, we will have
over 100 employees maxed out in their range.
We also have pay scale adjustments, and I mentioned that earlier,
where the red scale, which are directors and administer, their scale
moved by one percent; the technical staff, which is in the white pay
plan, they moved 2.5 percent.
So if somebody was maxed out, Commissioner Henning, and
they were in the white plan, they would get 2.5 percent of that 3.9
percent COLA this year because their scale moved because it's market
driven. We try to make that happen so that we attract and pay
employees what the market can bear for their particular salaries.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. One more question. On
page 19 of 19, I look at pre-fire service, non-bargaining unit, that
means they're not union, right?
MS. PRICE: Right.
MR. MUDD: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought that all of our
firefighters are union. That's something new to me. So the firefighter
are also EMTs, or EMTs are -- EMTs that are -- EMT /firefighters, this
doesn't apply to them?
MS. PRICE: The ones --
Page 67
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A person that's in the ambulance
and also has a certification for firefighter, they don't apply to what
we're talking about today; am I correct?
MS. PRICE: They're not in a -- EMS is a bargaining unit, so
they're covered under their contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, but --
MS. PRICE: Isles of Capri is the one that is not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But I just want to clarify
because some of them are firefighters also.
MS. PRICE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But my comment is, it says
employees who hit top pay of the range in their position will not
receive COLA, and I just can't believe that their cost of living is not
going to increase just like everybody else's. So, I mean, that's -- that's
very disheartening to me. And, you know, merit is merit. You did a
good job, here it is. You did a poor job, you don't get it this year.
Let's try to do better next year, is my philosophy. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You say market driven, is that
also based in Miami/Fort Lauderdale?
MS. PRICE: The study that we do includes all over the State of
Florida, as well as companies -- counties and cities outside of the State
of Florida. We have invited a number of private industry to also
participate in our salary surveys. I believe last year only one accepted
our invitation and provided data to us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So you say that our cost of
living is based on figures from Miami/Fort Lauderdale --
MS. PRICE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that's what you said.
MS. PRICE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But is their cost of living like
ours? I mean, being that our -- you know, it costs more to live in
Page 68
-'''>''---''-''''-..''---''---
October 11, 2005
Collier County than it does anyplace else in Florida, I think that that
figure needs to be tested somewhat. In fact, it's probably artificial.
Same with COLA, so if you're saying because -- based on the
Miami/F ort Lauderdale figures, this is -- this is how CO LA is
awarded, and yet our own employees, it seems, are going to be, in my
opinion anyway, they're going to be penalized for longevity on the job
because now they've reached their cap, so they're not going to get any
cost of living, but their gas prices go up just as much as ours.
And I'm having a real problem with those 36 employees. It's
almost like they're being shafted because they've been diligent
employees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what we've done here is
muddy the waters to the point where I'm not sure if all of us know
what's going on here. Let me see if I can help out in regards to the
thinking process of what we're doing here.
And being that -- coming from the private sector in working with
pay scales is very similar to what the county's trying to address here.
Even the private sector deals with the pay scales maximum.
You're saying that basically if somebody is in the top one-fourth
or above in their pay scale, that the pay scale is adjusted to
compensate them, which is basically over what the normal pay range
is for their job description; am I correct?
MS. PRICE: The average pay for that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. So when they get in the
three-quarter percentile or above, they are now in the market where
they're above what the marketplace is really paying.
And so what we do, if they're still an outstanding employee, they
will get the 3.9 percent COLA providing it does not hit the max. If
they are an outstanding employee, if they get the 3.9, and you say, I'd
like to reward you for ajob well done, you get a bonus because if you
try to put it into their base salary, then they're way over the pay range.
Page 69
October 11, 2005
So what you do is you give them a one-time bonus, and it's a nice
gesture to say thank you for a well-- for ajob well done.
The next year, or at some point in time when we make a study,
and I say we, the county, we go out in the job market, and it could be
the following year or could be two years down the road, we get
analyses from companies throughout -- or study groups throughout the
United States, and in particular, this particular geographical location,
and they tell us that at that point in time that we need to adjust our pay
scales accordingly, whether its up or down, and so we do that.
And then they're either adjusted higher or lower, whatever the
data comes up with. Normally it's always adjusted in the higher scale.
And, again, we always take care of all the employees. And if
they realized that, once they get in the top three-quarters or above in
their pay range that they are actually exceeding what the normal job
market is because we always have a buffer; is that correct?
MS. PRICE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think that answers the
question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Jim, let me ask you a question.
What is the financial impact if you were to give COLA to all eligible
employees?
MR. MUDD: Don's got that particular number, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. PRICE: Sorry, sir. We did not calculate that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's sort of important.
MS. PRICE: We're looking at approximately 100 employees, so
you're not talking about a huge impact. But we would have to come
back and calculate that for you. We could probably do it after lunch.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we're talking about roughly $3,900
(sic)? Is that about what we're talking about?
MR. MUDD: Thirty-nine hundred -- did you say hundred
dollars?
Page 70
_0·0___'_"_" -->
October 11, 2005
MS. PRICE: Thirty-nine thousand.
MR. MUDD: Thirty-nine thousand dollars.
MS. PRICE: That would probably be a reasonable range to be
looking at.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I understand the concerns of the other
commissioners, they are, I believe, that there's some confusion about
how we should handle merit pay, but I think we can work our way
through that.
I think most of us understand that if you do a good job this year,
you ought to be rewarded, but that doesn't mean you ought to be
rewarded the next year, the next year, the next year, the next year, the
next year, and the next year for one year of good performance.
But with respect to COLA, it does seem to me that an employee
even at the top of their range is impacted by the cost of living just like
everyone else. And limiting the COLA, since it really is a one-time
adjustment, I hope, to keep pace - to keep the value of their
compensation from eroding over time, it seems to be an appropriate
thing to do.
So if our estimate of $39,000 is somewhere in the ballpark, it
seems to me that's not a -- not a large amount of money in view of the
fairness issue involved to modify our pay plan to accommodate that.
Does that make sense to you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Makes sense to me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, me too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And the merit issues on both
sides, is there agreement that if I do a good job this year, that I ought
to get rewarded this year, but it shouldn't be a permanent reward put
into my salary that I get the next year and the next year and the next
year?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Makes sense to me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For those who have reached the cap,
you mean?
Page 71
October 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: For those --
MR. MUDD: Did you say market point or did you say cap? We
go by market point, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Market point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that market point based on
Miami?
MR. MUDD: Well, it's the lump sum -- no. It's based on the pay
scale. And I want to -- I want to correct what I just said. The lump
sum merit point is 10 percent above the market point, okay? And so
that's our distinctive point between, if you're below that, we add it to
the salaries so that we can keep that person's -- get their salary up to
speed where it needs to be so that we maintain them. If you're above
that lump sum merit point, then you get a bonus check and it doesn't
go into your pay. And you want me to add COLA to everybody's
salary no matter if you're maxed out or not?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that -- Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I think that's fair enough.
What we need to do is push the top of the pay scale to whatever the
COL -- if it's 3.9, then we should adjust the top limit of the pay scales
to 3.9.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think we'll keep the pay scales
the way they're done on the market driven, because you've got market
point, and that's how you -- that's the point that you figure out what
their merit's going to be, okay, no matter if it's going to be a bonus or
it's going to be in your check. You're basically going from the middle
of the range. You're not doing it based on their salary. If you do that,
then you're going to artificially move that market point, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question is, what do you
consider market point? Is it mid scale or is it three-quarters --
MR. MUDD: Five per -- Collier County's market point is 5
percent over the average price in the marketplace for that particular
Page 72
October 11, 2005
job, and we made that determination three years ago.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And the board -- and the board approved that so
that we could -- we could make sure that we were paying our
employees not only well, but 5 percent above what was out there in
the private sector.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. All right. So would you say
that it's midpoint or is above midpoint of the pay rating?
MS. PRICE: It's above midpoint.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's about
right then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay . We have Commissioner Fiala,
and then can we get to a vote?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's exactly what I was
going to say.
I'd like to make a motion, please --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to approve the -- approve the
recommendation with the addition that all employees receive COLA
in their pay from here on in and keep with the -- keep with the bonus
for those who have reached their cap as a lump sum; for those who
have not, it be included in their pay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it if you include--
when you say bonus, you're talking about merit increase.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Merit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. Merit increase. Yes, I'd
like to change those words, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For good performance?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll include that in my motion.
That's exactly what I mean.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion again, would you do that one
Page 73
October 11, 2005
more time?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'm motioning that we
approve the 2006 fiscal pay -- fiscal year pay and classification and
general pay adjustment with the contingency that COLA will be
awarded to everyone regardless of whether they're in that small 34 or
36 range or 100 range, and that merit pay increases will be awarded to
everyone who deserves them, but understanding that those who have
reached the cap will get it as a lump sum.
MR. MUDD: The merit -- and it's called the merit point. You
said max, but I want to make sure that we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, merit point.
MR. MUDD: Merit point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But -- that's what you're doing now?
MS. PRICE: For merit pay, correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So what I'm suggesting to you so
that there's no confusion -- and maybe we need to make sure that
there's no confusion or that Commissioner Fiala doesn't intend
something different -- you're approving exactly what they're doing
now with the exception that COLA will be paid to everybody?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the only exception.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the only exception, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just want to clarify on
merit, what it says in here, that every director and administrator will
receive -- receive merit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But they don't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They don't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Page 74
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You got that -- they cleared that up
earlier, I believe, in their discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just wanted to make
. ,
sure It s --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On the record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- understood and on the record
and a part of the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll add that to my motion,
understanding that not every director and administrator would receive
merit unless it's --
MR. MUDD: Based on performance.
MS. PRICE: Warranted, based on performance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Standard performance review.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That is included in my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now we have a motion that was laid on
the table earlier pertaining to the attorney's salary structure, or pay
Page 75
~._~"'---'"---,-,.._..,..~~".^_._-
October 11, 2005
classification scales.
Would you like to remove that motion from the table and
consider it at this point in time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No? You don't?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then that means the attorney isn't
going to get a salary plan approved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Salary plan approved?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Y eah. You'll recall that we tabled your
motion earlier with respect to the attorney's pay classification plan.
MR. MUDD: That was item lOA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was item lOA. We haven't voted on
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you're asking me -- I
thought you said you wanted me to withdrew it -- withdraw it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. I was suggesting that we place it
back on the table for consideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And so do you want to handle the
county attorney's pay plan the same way that we handled the county
manager's pay plan? And I could suggest one additional bit of
guidance, if you're interested, and that is, we could -- if the county
attorney is having difficulty attracting and/or retaining people, we
might instruct him to review his entire pay scale to adjust it to a level
that might be appropriate for the purpose of attracting and retaining
people.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And we're not putting a
limitation on when we should do this within this fiscal year?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we could do that, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 76
October 11,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Within the -- yes, fiscal year '06, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does that make sense? Would you like
to do that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's fine. Probably get a
lot more information that way, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'll make the mot --
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Henning, you'll need to
withdraw the motion if -- that's currently on the floor, which is a
motion to approve with a second. So if you withdraw the motion, or
the second withdraws the second, then that motion is gone and you
can make a new motion if you wish to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remove my previous motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on item 10A.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The primary motion has been withdrawn
and seconded. The second has been withdrawn.
Is there a new motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the pay plan
for the county attorney to mirror the county manager's pay plan, and
further into my motion, if the county attorney, David Weigel, finds it
difficult to retain or recruit staff for his agency, that he will come back
to the Board of Commissioners for a recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. On the pay classification plan?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the pay classification.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or the pay plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
You don't have any comment?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm right there.
Page 77
October 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to clarify one thing
that I said on the record. I said fleecing. I meant fleeing. Fleeing not
fleecing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't even notice that.
All right. We-
Item #14A
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 $5000
BONUS TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, THERESA M. COOK-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I don't know if we're going to get
to the county attorney's performance appraisal or mine, but we do
have an 11 o'clock time certain, but I would ask the board's
indulgence. Ms. Theresa Cook has a meeting that she has to go to so
Page 78
--~~-~_._,_.._,..__...~.~._-_._-,...,,~-
October 11, 2005
that she can get her permits for the Immokalee Airport, and that thing
happens around 12:30 in a place that's not in Collier County. It's up in
Fort Myers. And I'd like to try to get 14A done before we go into the
Golden Gate City Library item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And this item is a -- continued from September 27,
2005, BCC meeting. It was a recommendation to approve a 3.9
percent, which is $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, Ms. Theresa M. Cook.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
MS. FILSON: And Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker; Gene
Schmidt.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Schmidt, you've got 10
seconds.
MR. SCHMIDT: Start counting.
You will recall that, when I retired 10 months ago as the
executive director of the Collier County Airports, that Theresa Cook
stepped up to the challenge, stepped up to the plate of a changing
airport system and immediately demonstrated that she has the
knowledge, the foresight, and the expertise to take on the immense
challenges that she faced.
Your Airport Authority board of directors determined that this
3.9 percent, Theresa has earned, and the COLA, or cost of living
salary increase, and also deserves an additional $5,000 bonus.
Among her accomplishments -- and this is important for you to
understand and to know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We know her accomplishments.
MR. SCHMIDT: You do?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I think--
Page 79
October 11,2005
MR. SCHMIDT: Would you tell me what they are then so that
I'll know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She has taken this Airport
Authority and turned it around, and we see nothing but good of what's
going to happen in Collier County. I didn't mean to interrupt you, sir,
but I just --
MR. SCHMIDT: Well, I'd just like to point out that among her
accomplishments, that she's completed the sale of the aircraft, and I
know that was dear to some of your hearts. She concluded three new
leases, one of which is producing a revenue stream of $33,000 a year,
that I don't believe you were aware of that, because I just found it out
myself.
And this year she's working with a decreased staff and is taking
action on permitting problems that have always been difficult and
time-consuming. And so we're confident that she
has realistic goals for the future and has the skills and the talents to
continue as a true professional, and that's about all that I have to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Schmidt.
Commissioner Fiala, did you want to speak?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I was just going to say that I've
heard so many good things that I'd make a motion to approve, but I've
already been --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. Commissioner Halas has a motion
on the floor. Is there -- was there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was the second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
And I think -- I think we've all been impressed. We're very
happy, and it -- the salary increase and bonus is well deserved. Thank
you very much for the good work.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 80
October 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MS. COOK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks, Gene.
Item #10H
CONCEPTUAL PLANS AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR
A NEW 17,000 SQUARE FOOT LIBRARY ADJACENT TO THE
EXISTING GOLDEN GATE LIBRARY (PROJECT 54261)-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to item 10H, and if
it's okay, we'll go past the attorney and county manager's appraisal and
get to this item, because there are some people in the audience that
have signed up to speak.
And this is item 10H. This item to be heard at 11 a.m. It's a
recommendation to discuss the conceptual plans and the financial
implications for a new 17,000 square foot library adjacent to the
existing Golden Gate Library, project 54261, and Ms. Marla Ramsey
and Mr. Ron Hovell will present.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, I'm going to start off this
morning with just a little bit of clarification of what happened at the
last meeting.
In your packet we included a copy of the grant application that
was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 23rd
Page 81
October 11,2005
and was then forwarded to the State of Florida.
I believe at the last meeting it indicated that it was 24,000 square
foot that was sent up. In reality, the grant application, which is before
you, shows a 15,000 square foot increase for a total of 22,000 at
Golden Gate Library.
There was always a question at that time whether the half a
million dollars that is being slated from the library, state library,
would still be valid if we changed the square footage at the library.
And we do have a letter, which is attached alongside of that, that does
indicate that there is no requirement for the amount of square foot and
that the half a million dollars will still be eligible at even the 12,000
square foot element that was approved on July 26th.
The only other thing I want to talk about, just real briefly is, this
is a synopsis slide of the AUIR and it shows the Golden Gate 10,000
square foot, which is what's on the current 2004 AUIR. And it shows
that in fiscal year 2009, that there would be a deficit of 61 square feet
if we did not look at anything beyond that, whether we were talking
about additional at the Golden Gate or else the South Regional
Library.
Ifwe looked at the Golden Gate at 17,000 square foot, you would
see that we would still have capacity out till fiscal year 2011. And if
you add the 17 in the South Regional 30,000 square foot, and there it
would take us out to 2016. At that point in time we would be looking
at a new facility.
I've asked Dan Summers with BSSW to put together a site plan to
show us the 17,000 square foot and how it lays on that master plan
that we have in the Golden Gate area. He has with him today that site
plan, and I'm going to ask him to share that with you and answer any
questions that you might have with that.
MR. SUMMERS: Good morning. I'm Dan Summers. I'm
principal architect with BSSW Architects.
And as Marla said, we were asked to revise a site plan to show
Page 82
~-"~,.."..---~~.._."".-~--..-,,,,-.,- ,..-,-
October 11, 2005
the 17,000 square foot rendition of a free-standing building next to the
existing 7,000 square foot building.
Just to give you a brief history of our experience on the site, in
2000 we were asked to master plan the site when the county purchased
the eight acres just to the -- just to the north of the community center,
which is -- I guess you can't see it -- but it's just to the north of the
community center where the annex site was.
And at that time we -- the Lucerne Road -- is there, yeah. Okay.
There we go.
At that time this was the eight-acre site, basically part of it's
shown here, that was added to the -- what's called the Golden Gate
government services satellite complex. And Lucerne Road did go
through this parcel which separated the Golden Gate Community
Center from the new parcel.
At that time we master planned the site to include the Golden
Gate -- the Golden Gate annex, which is known as Wheels, plus
master plan all the site drainage for this property. And at that time we
had planned on a 10,000 square foot addition to the library.
And so the master site plan drainage plan was predicated on the
10,000 square foot addition to the -- to the library.
Since that time, of course, the needs grew a little bit, and so we
ended up at the 12,000 square foot number thinking that we could still
accommodate the water management on site.
To go to 17,000 square foot, just to give you some scale of what's
going on, is that we're talking about vacating Lucerne -- vacating 40
feet of Lucerne. The existing right-of-way was 100 feet, because it's a
-- it's actually a boulevard, a road, two lanes with a center median.
And we can vacate 40 feet to gain an additional about half an acre to
the site.
So that would add 40 feet additional to the north side along
Lucerne Road. It would turn into a one-lane road, much as the--
much as the other roads are in this vicinity.
Page 83
October 11, 2005
To expand the library to 17,000 square feet, you have a 5,000
square foot basically increase from our 12,000 square foot increase,
plus we need an additional 25 parking spaces.
So we have sort of a net increase of 15,000 square feet of
impervious area over what we had originally master planned.
So to accomplish the water management, we would have to -- on
the annex site, where the field is, just increase the size of the water
management area that currently exists right here.
And the shaded area right here is about a 40- foot long by
300- foot long retention area that would be added to the existing
retention that's out there. And that's how we can accomplish the
17,000 square feet of library that has been requested.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just want to state,
within the grant application, in the body of it, Marla, it stated 24,000
square feet, but it's nice that we have a clarification from the state that
-- of their understanding. That's where that came from.
MR. SUMMERS: Okay. I think Ron's going to talk about the
scheduling.
MR. HOVELL: For the record, Ron Hovell, Principal Project
Manager in the Facilities Management Department.
As Dan mentioned, some of the issues, we've got the stormwater
area north of Wheels that would have to be adjusted. That's a dry
retention area when we were using those words there a minute ago.
The Lucerne Road would require both some paving and utilities
changes to accommodate it. And from a timing point of view, we
would have to bring back a design contract change to the board in
November, go through the design and permitting phase, which we
would anticipate to wrap up by about October of 2006.
Solicit bids roughly in that same time frame, as we would just be
getting, hopefully, potentially, our answers to our environmental
Page 84
.--F ....... '"~. . __..~._.__"
October 11, 2005
permit questions.
So we may -- in order to meet the December requirement for the
state's grant, we may have to solicit bids in advance of knowing some
of those final details that we might have to put into our construction
document. So potentially we would wind up with a contract that the
first thing we'd have to do is amend, but it's doable.
We would then award the contract by December of 2006, and
looking at starting construction in January of 2007, lasting till about
November of2007.
And then next I'll turn it over to budget office to talk about the
funding aspect.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski, O&B director.
Your existing impact fee stream is approximately $2 million a
year, and that's based on your existing library impact fee, which is
.18089 per thousand square feet, or translates to $180.89 per thousand
square feet.
The library impact fee is only on residential construction. So
single- family, multifamily, and the like, but it is not on commercial,
industrial properties. Just, again, solely residential. And the cap is
4,000 square foot maximum under your current impact fee.
During the most recent library impact fee update, the cost per
square foot for the cost of the library and the rate that is in your library
impact fee, as it stands today for cost of construction, is $199.27, the
cost per square foot.
That most recent library impact fee update was effective in May
2004, and that was based on the cost of the North Naples Regional
Library, which was the most current facility, in terms of project timing
and scheduling that preceded that impact fee update. So it was based
on -- approximately on the actual costs of construction of that facility.
Obviously, in the last 18 months or thereabouts, you've seen
dramatic increases in the cost of steel, concrete, and the like and just a
Page 85
_,._.____ù"..,__
October 11,2005
large increase overall in the -- just cost per square foot of construction,
both residential and commercial, not only in Naples and Collier
County, but also throughout the country.
The current estimate that we used and that the architect was
involved with is a cost of $318.29 cost per square foot. Obviously--
and that's the first bullet here. Obviously there's a disconnect between
the 318.29 per square foot, which is your current estimated cost of
construction versus the $199.27 cost per square foot that is the current
rate in your approved library impact fee.
So when we initially did the analysis looking -- projecting out,
obviously there were shortfalls created because you have a two -- or
118, $119 per square foot differential in the cost of construction that
your current library impact fee would not be capturing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sixty-two percent.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. So what we did -- the architect
gave us the new estimated cost of construction, we then contacted our
impact fee consultant, Mr. Tindale from Tindale, Oliver &
Associates, who is here if there are any questions relative to the
impact fee, and we looked at a ballpark with that cost of construction
in the current, by dropping in that new cost of construction into the
impact fee calculation, what would that do to the impact fee and the
resultant revenue stream associated therewith.
The impact fee itself as indicated in your executive summary
would increase to $243.26 per square foot. We then -- we then used
that -- the $2 million a year annual revenue stream was then in excess
of $2.6 million in terms of feasibility of funding the library, the
Golden Gate Library at 17,000 square feet, and then the 30,000 square
foot South Regional Library.
It is financially feasible. But, again, it's predicated -- it would be
predicated on the approval -- you can't build it at 318 a square foot and
capture an impact fee at $199 a square foot and be whole. So
ultimately the financing would work.
Page 86
.--"-.
October 11, 2005
We estimated a 10-year construct -- or 10-year loan on the
Golden Gate Library and a IS-year loan on the South Regional
Library. But, again, the affordability factor was predicated on
the board -- on the board adopting a new updated library impact fee
based on the current cost of construction. So I want to make that
abundantly clear, that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd just like to clarify one thing before
we go to the other commissioners.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The $318.29 square foot cost is
applicable to both libraries under consideration and not just to the
Golden Gate Library?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that is a cost for construction for
both. We're not loading something into one or the other?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We applied that to both.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Commissioner Halas? And by the way, we do have -- we have
public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have three public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, do you
want to ask your questions now?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Originally we proposed a
12,000 square foot library; is that correct?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With the 7,000 out-parcel that was
going to remain, is that correct, for a total of 19,000; is that correct?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Let Ron do it, Marla.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so now we're looking
Page 87
October 11, 2005
at building an addition to this library up to 24,000 square foot.
My question is, if we -- if we remain at the 12,000 square foot,
plus the 7,000 square foot, plus the South Regional Library, we have
the money to address both of these and be in compliance as far as the
impact fees at the -- the impact fees as they are as of today?
MS. RAMSEY: We had that.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: If you built the 12,000 and the 30,000, that
would meet your level of service standard for the foreseeable future.
But, again, the construction estimate would still be based on moving
to 318 because you can't collect 200 and spend 300. Again--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that. But what I'm
saying is, we have the funds available to address those two projects if
we re -- that the -- let me start all over.
We can address both these proj ects if they remain at -- where
they are right now, and that is 12,000 and 30,000; is that correct?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have the funding. Our problem
is, if we expand the library in Golden Gate Estates (sic) to 24,000,
then we're running in a severe deficit; is that correct?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, no. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your
question. You can build -- if you can build 17,000 with the 318.29,
you could definitely built the 12. We're just saying the entire scenario
is built upon increasing the impact fee from $199, the cost per square
foot that's a cost component within your impact fee, to the 318.29.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But if we have the impact fee
remain the same as it is today, we can build the 1 7 or the -- correction,
the 12,000 square foot building and the 30,000 square foot building; is
that true?
MS. RAMSEY: No. Let me help a little bit on this one. When
we did the plan for the 12,000 and the 30,000 square foot originally on
the spreadsheet, we came and said that in the year '09/'10, we would
have to have the new impact fee update done by that point in time in
Page 88
October 11, 2005
order to stay solvent throughout the entire bond element of it, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: -- we were going to be looking at an increase in
the impact fee, but we weren't going to be looking at it within the --
probably in two years.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Until two years.
MS. RAMSEY: Once we have the new facilities up and on the
ground and the new cost associated with those facilities, we were
going to utilize those into the new impact fee element, which is the
way that it was told to us in the very beginning with the consultant,
that we had to have it actually in the ground and already built before
we could utilize that price in our impact fee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're telling me today is
that if we decide to increase the size of the Golden Gate Library to
17,000 square feet and still continue on schedule with the south
library, regional library, at 30,000, then we have to, today, look at
increasing the impact fee, is that correct, to pay for both of these?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: And we need to have it in the '06 year, so by
January we would need to see something --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But if we keep the current
12,000 foot (sic) library in Golden Gate Estates -- or Golden Gate City
and the 30,000, then we don't have to address impact fees for another
two years?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. That's what the spreadsheet says.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the scenario here, right.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I need to take this another
step further. What do we show for plans for expansion of the Golden
Page 89
October 11, 2005
Gate Estates Library, and do we have any future plans for an
Orangetree library?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, sir, we do. In the east of951 plan, which
you'll see soon, we have a fairly good-size library planned in the
Orangetree area, as well as an expansion to the Golden Gate Estates
Library, as well as another expansion to the Immokalee Library in
order to keep current with all the growth.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if we were to implement
this plan for the expansion of the Golden Gate City Library, what kind
of effect would that have as far as the other ones coming on line or
improvements being made there?
MS. RAMSEY: I think -- we'd have to look out at the year, but I
think we had originally planned in 2014 to go out in the Estates and
have some library in that location. As you can see by the chart that I
showed earlier, we -- and capacity-wise we would be good until 2016.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, 2016 would be
with the new impact fee in effect?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this particular thing we're
looking at today is not tied into an increased impact fee; in other
words, we'd be improving it, and then we'd have to improve the
impact fee after the fact?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the impact fee cannot be
put into place after both libraries are built; is that what I heard you
say?
MS. RAMSEY: That was the original element that I got from the
consultant. And I'll let the consultant tell you about this situation, but
that was -- the historical data is what they usually use.
MR. TINDALE: Good afternoon. Steve Tindale. Two distinct
different issues. Your level of service standard for any impact fee's
based on what you have in inventory. You can't change the level of
Page 90
October 11, 2005
service standard until it's built. But what it costs you to build
something is based on your next project, not your past projects.
All over the State of Florida I'm finding impact fees, even with
our indexing, over the last six months to a year, are almost in a crisis
mode. We've done impact fees a year ago that used data that was a
year old that we tried to index. In the last six months to a year, the
numbers have changed dramatically.
If you don't update your impact fee within the next two or three
months -- and this is a closed system. It's population and cost. It's not
as complicated as some of the other ones. Every month that you don't
update your index -- I mean your impact fee with these new costs,
you're just going to create more of a deficit.
It's nothing to do with when you build or whatever. If the next
one you build is more expensive than we thought it was, your current
number is incorrect. You need to adjust that. And if you don't,
whether you build 10,000 square feet or 5,000 square feet or 40,000
square feet, you're going to get in the hole in terms of the revenue you
have versus what you need to construct new projects.
I mean, it's just really straightforward. It's cost per horne, cost per
population, very little money for credit. And for every month that you
wait to update your impact fee when you know the next building's
going to be much more expensive, you're just going to create that
much more of a deficit. It's really just a choice of how much of a
deficit you want to create.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you get to the point of calculating
or updating an impact fee, do you have great flexibility in building
substantially above your level of service standard and thereby just
adjusting your impact fee?
MR. TINDALE: You have none, not on level of service
standard. You're not changing your standard. We're using the same
standard and replacing the library per square foot or per book, exactly
as the other population. The only problem is, we're setting your
Page 91
---..".... "".~.__._,,-"~.
October 11,2005
existing system as worth 60 percent more than we got in the impact
fee equation because it costs 60 percent more to replace it. It's nothing
to do with standards. This is strictly, you can charge the new
developer for the same value per person as existing people have paid.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. TINDALE: As soon as those construction prices went up
60 percent, your existing system is worth 60 percent more money than
we estimated, and to replace it, you can charge that new 60 percent to
new development. If you don't, for every person that moves in this
county, you'll be collecting 40 percent less money than the current
people have paid for the system based on its value to replace. And
that's a very straightforward issue.
The numbers have changed dramatically in the last six months.
We used numbers that were a year old. And if you don't respond to
these new numbers and re-estimate the current value of your current
system that you've got to replace, you'll be undercharging new
development, and you will not have enough money to build this
system as you go forward.
It's not real complicated. It's really straightforward. The
problem is the replacement value, which is the next -- what it costs to
build the next increment has changed by 60 percent, and you can wait
to react to that, or you can react now. And the longer you wait, the
more money you're going to get behind.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could just make one statement
real quick, because I've heard him say replace about six different
times. You cannot use impact fees to raze an old building to put a
new one there, okay? That was existing and already done on impact
fees. He did say, replace, but build a new because of growth, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right.
MR. TINDALE: Add to -- add to in terms of -- it's like buy -- if
you own a home and you go to buy your second home, the second
home's not worth what you paid for the first home. That's the reason
Page 92
October 11, 2005
I'm using the word replace. It's the next margin. It's what it costs to
add to. And it doesn't cost what you paid in the past. It costs what
you're going to build the next building.
So it's real straightforward. The numbers have changed
dramatically all over the State of Florida. You happen to be in a
system, that this system is paying its way with impact fees. If you had
30 percent of the system being paid for impact fees and 70 percent
paid with taxes and you had this problem, you have a 10 percent
problem.
When you're trying to move -- pay as you go and you've got a 60
percent problem, it's a 60 percent problem. It's not 60 percent of 30
percent, because, you know, two-thirds of it being paid for by taxes.
Your library system is being paid by impact fees. So this becomes a--
one area, transportation, you've got gas tax. You've got all these other
revenues that impact fees are a part of. This impact fee program is
your library program, 100 percent. A little bit with credit with these
other items, but it's really critical --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that there's no misunderstanding,
from the standpoint of the public who is listening, we have to be very
clear when we talk about, the impact fees are only for the construction
of additional capacity. It is not for the entire library system because
taxes go to support libraries once they're constructed, and that's a very
large component of the cost. So we have to make sure that the
taxpayers understand that.
And then Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let me --let me see if I can
rephrase this question. One of the concerns that I have is in the AIUR
(sic) report. Now, if we expand this library beyond the 12,000 square
feet, and my understanding is with the existing 7,000 and the 12,000,
which gives us 19,000, we're in compliance with the AIUR (sic)
report; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: AUIR.
Page 93
--~._.,.__.._,.._._---_.._..._"._,.._-_._~~
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, AUIR.
MS. RAMSEY: Currently we are in compliance, sir, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, if we build beyond that
capacity and we need to build a library someplace else within the
county, can we still do that with the impact fees, or are we in
compliance that we can't build an additional library such as maybe out
someplace in the far eastern Golden Gate Estates?
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, I think that that is a direction
that you, as the board, would give us as to what level of capacity you'd
want us to have in addition to the capacity that we need to have. I
don't know of anything that says you can't build beyond that, but I do
know that there's rulings about building less than that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: While we're talking about
impact fees, it's my understanding, and I'm told, that if we use general
fund moneys or other sources, it has to be credited to it. So right now
we're using tourist tax for beach facilities. So we need to credit that.
MS. RAMSEY: We are, and we're doing an impact fee study
right now. I saw the draft two days ago, and they are giving us a
credit, TDC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're using ad valorem dollars
for transportation. We always have to use ad valorems from here on
then?
MR. TINDALE: No. We gave the -- when we did the
transportation, which is now currently being updated -- it's almost
been three years -- we gave a credit for the transportation -- for the ad
valorem tax you're using to -- I think you're using it to payoff debt.
And we gave the credit. The fee's down because of that investment, of
that ad valorem tax in growth, not in operating. Just the capital
portion that you're, I think, retiring debt, if I remember right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
Page 94
.__._,...~.,_ _..._, _"__'_~"'''''__'''''O__''"___·
October 11, 2005
MR. TINDALE: So the answer is, yes, we absolutely give credit
if you're going to use a tax to build capacity and expansion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: From now on we need to
recognize that ad valorem dollars?
MR. TINDALE: I'm not sure of the ad valorem you're talking
about whether it's operating or whether it's -- as far as I know, in the
past, you've not --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's for new construction.
MR. TINDALE: I'm not aware of ad valorem being used for
construction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want to get too far off the
base, but I just think that we have the opportunity to use ad valorem
dollars. But it sounds like we could do it with impact fees anyways.
MR. MUDD: Sir, you could use -- if you needed to build a
particular facility, for instance, we had some issues with the law -- law
enforcement impact fee and covering positions -- new positions
coming on and trying to equip deputies, if you remember correctly, in
the '05 budget, it was something like $938,000.
What we did is we took -- we took ad valorem dollars and we
basically loaned it to the impact fee, okay, and basically -- and as the
impact fee comes on board, we pay that loan back and put it back in
the ad valorem dollars. You can do those kind of things. I don't
necessarily recommend it as a status quo, as the thing that you do all
the time. But if you get yourself caught in between a rock and a hard
place, it's something that you can do as long as Mr. Smykowski's
group keeps it quite separate and keeps track of those particular issues
very diligently.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I just ask a question, and it's a
question that's going to have to be answered, I think, by the public
speakers who are going to be speaking on this issue and, perhaps, by
some of the commissioners in whose district this -- these areas are
located.
Page 95
October 11, 2005
Is it better strategically and from the standpoint of serving the
public, is it better to build large libraries in single locations, or is it
better to distribute them throughout a community so they're more
convenient? I don't have the answer to that question, but I would
appreciate any body's input on that as we go through this.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One of the things, I think,
that's becoming alarmingly clear, according to Mr. Tindale, right now,
even if we were going to build a 10,000 square foot library in Golden
Gate and we were going to put off building the 30,000 square foot
library for a year, the cost of building it is still almost -- you know,
over double of what it was before, and I think we have to address that
right away.
If we put off for two years raising that impact fee -- and as much
as I hate to do that because we've got thousands of new homes coming
on board in East Naples that are going to have to pay this new impact
fee. Yet if we don't pay it, if we don't get it charged right now, we're
not going to be able to build anything. So let me just put that on the
record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much,
Commissioner Fiala.
Let's call the public speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is William Poteet. He'll be
followed by Cheryle Newman.
MR. POTEET: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
William H. Poteet, Jr., and I'm president of the Golden Gate Area
Civic Association. And I'm back here to -- first of all to apologize that
we've created this much fuss, because that was not our intent. Our
intent was to get the best possible library we could for our community.
And we are very happy with the new plan that
was submitted. We reviewed it last night, and it will work quite well
for our community.
Page 96
--""""-".--
October 11, 2005
But the question comes down, really, to financing of the entire
project, and it's not Golden Gate, it is not South Naples, it's the entire
community. As they showed, you know, you build one or two of
them, then all of a sudden, our friends to the east are worried about
whether or not they can have a facility in Golden Gate Estates or a
facility in Orangetree or a facility any other place in the county.
And your funding source is just inadequate. Whether you do
impact fees or you go out and take ad valorem taxes or you find
another funding source, that's something this commission must do in
order to have a growing library system.
The Golden Gate community absolutely needs as much library as
they can get. We have a very large pedestrian neighborhood. The
question was asked by Commissioner Coy Ie, do you need one large
place that people can go to? Our community absolutely does because
we get there on bicycle and we get there on foot, and it needs to be
centrally located.
It's in the middle of three -- four different local community
schools that -- five, actually, out in that area that all use the library
facilities. It is the most used library in the county except for the main
library and the downtown library. And of all the little satellites, no
other one is used more.
So, you know, my request to you is to figure out how to pay for
5,000 square feet. It's not that big of a deal. The additional 5,000
square feet should not be monumental. There's a lot bigger things in
this county than trying to come up with a small expansion to our
library. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Cheryle Newman.
MR. POTEET: Cheryle had to leave.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Ken Drum. He will be your final speaker.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could add one thing. Mr.
Poteet said that it was -- it was the third largest population, and I
would tell you if that library was open on Sunday, it would probably
Page 97
. ....,----..."".--."-.. ~
October 11, 2005
be at the top of the list, okay. Just to even the scales. I mean, you've
got a regional library that's open on Sundays, this one's not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why not?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, why not?
MR. MUDD: It has to do with staff and things like that. But I
would say to you that its circulation would be very, very high if it had
all the same hours of operation as the regional library did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to increase the hours of
operation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's do that through the
budget process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR. DRUM: Hi. I'm Ken Drum. I'm a board member of the
East Naples Civic Association and also a supervisor of the Lely
Community Development District.
I believe our attorney, Mr. David Bryant, from the LCDD has
been here before addressing the issue of the South Regional Library,
which will be contained in -- on Lely Cultural Boulevard.
We take no position on whether or not the Golden Gate Library
ought to be expanded. What we do want to see though is that our
South Regional Library is built according to the schedule that was
promised to us at least a few years ago and has been recently promised
to us again with the emergency center as well.
In regard to impact fees, probably the residents of East Naples
have paid in impact fees more than the cost of the South Regional
Library is going to cost. The thing is that our money went elsewhere,
and we are left with a 6,000 square foot library that is next to a golf
course where sometimes you need a helmet to go in there because of
golf balls flying into the parking lot.
And we desperately need a new library, which we have agreed to
the schedule that the county proposed. And so my only effort in being
here is to make sure that that schedule is kept. Thank you.
Page 98
e___..."__.__
October 11,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Drum.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Drum, we just
approved a contract today on the consent agenda to start the library
early, which will start in late 2006, so it's on schedule.
There's six area schools, public schools -- that doesn't include the
private school of St. Elizabeth Seton and the high school -- that is in
the area.
And Commissioner Coyle, to further answer your question, it is a
walking, biking community, a lot of parents use -- walk to the grocery
store and take the shopping carts back out to their home and leave it in
the median, so they don't have a vehicle or two vehicles per
household. But that's another issue.
You know, we're told that if we raise the impact fees to cover the
cost, which we need to do anyways, as Commissioner Fiala pointed
out, we'll have enough money to do the library system.
So, therefore, I make a motion to approve additional -- addition,
the 17,000 square foot, and in my motion is direct staff to bring back
an updated impact fee ordinance for the library system.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Coletta?
Oh, I'm sorry. There's a motion. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Mr. Poteet
brought up about the availability of libraries in the future for the
Estates and Orangetree area. And I thought we had understood what
that was all about. But one more time, Marla, if you'd be so kind to
come back up. This action in no way would impact the future plans
for increasing the library in the Estates or Orangetree?
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, at this point in time you are not
on our AUIR lists. You are on the east of951 horizon study, and we
Page 99
October 11, 2005
are looking at that as additional services out in your area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now let me go back and
rephrase the question again. I have to make sure -- because we've got
the same problems that Golden Gate City has in the fact that we've got
a booming community in the middle of -- especially Orangetree area,
that's right in the middle of almost the wilderness, that -- the amount
of miles that you have to travel to reach a library all the way up in
Immokalee or down at the Estates Library, is considerable, and it's not
an easy drive. It would be something someone would have to do with
much thought.
We got a tremendous amount of houses that are going to be built
out there. At some point in time, even though it's not on the list right
now, I want to know how this affects it. In other words, is this off the
books until after like 2016, or is this possibly still up for consideration
at a reasonable period of time?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, Commissioner, our capacity does take us
out until 2016. And if the board so directs us to bring something on
sooner than our capacity requires us to have it, we can do that,
assuming that there's additional funding. And I would assume between
now and 2016 we will probably update that impact fee a number of
times in order to stay current.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So what you're saying is
that I shouldn't be overly concerned that the system will take care of
us in a timely manner when the time does come? I want to make sure
that by voting in favor of the Golden Gate Library I don't totally write
off the possibility of having a library built out in the Orangetree area
when it's needed, and not have to wait on a long length of time till we
satisfy the bonds that are out there. That's the only thing I'm asking
from you now.
I want to be able to know with some certainty that I'm protecting
the area I represent.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, we do have on the books plans
Page 100
October 11, 2005
to build a library in that particular area. The year, I do not have that
specific at this moment in time. It looks like 2016 as I look at this
plan today, from what I'm hearing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's a long ways off,
fellow commissioners. But between now and the length of our tender
on this particular commission, I will be bringing this subject up, and I
expect support from the rest of this commission as I'm giving it to you
today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can address that every year if
necessary in the AUIR meeting, so we can certainly keep that on the
top of our list and address it as a need.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I appreciate, Commissioner
Coletta, your comments on the support of the item, because I did
support the Immokalee Library when -- to complete that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion by
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we'll call the motion. 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. The motion carries unanimously
to build the 17,000 square foot library and to update the impact fees.
MR. MUDD: Sir, it's a 17,000 new library --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Square foot new addition.
Page 101
----.-<
October 11, 2005
MR. MUDD: -- adjacent to the 7,000 that exists today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's correct.
MR. MUDD: Just want to make sure we've got that definitely
squared away. So it's a total of 24,000 square foot.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, okay.
Thank you very much. We're going to break for lunch. We'll be
back here at 1: 15. Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Mudd.
We're back in session. We have a quorum.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2005-353: 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. 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 - ADOPTED
We're going to 7 A.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This was continued from the September
27, 2005, BCC meeting. This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
It's variance 2005-AR-7444, Terry and Charlotte Rhodes,
represented by McGarvey Custom Homes, request a variance to
Page 102
October 11, 2005
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.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Will all
persons who intend to give testimony in this hearing, please stand to
be sworn.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. And ex
parte disclosure by commissioners.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I do not have any ex parte on this
particular item, 7 A, other than the fact that I talked with staff at some
length in regards to this. That is my only ex parte I have on this.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Come back to me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have no ex parte disclosure on
this item.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. The only ex parte I have are
the different staff members that I've spoken to asking questions of.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning, any ex
parte on 7 A, the variance request?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, not at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very well. Thank you.
And we will continue.
I'm sorry. Commissioner Coletta?
Page 103
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have none.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. RHODES: Good afternoon. I'm Charlie Rhodes. My
husband and I are the petitioners for this zoning request.
Just a recap. After we had purchased our home, we had applied
to the county in order to have the existing fence replaced with a screen
enclosure, and at that time found out that there was an issue with the
setback requirement.
So a year ago I started the procedures, how I ended up today here
with you all. Thank you also last week for continuing our variance.
The neighbor who came in support of me had a dinner party at six, and
I did want her to make that. So thank you.
One thing that I do have -- I know you have letters from both the
neighbors. There's only the three neighbors, three homes there, and
you have letters from them. I also have -- I have a letter here that was
written from the Bonita Bay Group, from Susan Watts, who's the
senior vice-president of development operations. This was just
yesterday, I believe, faxed to Mr. Coletta, Commissioner Coletta, and
I do have copies for the other members and for the record.
Thank you. Would you like for me to read this letter into the
record?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It might be appropriate. Is it relatively
brief?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good,
MS. RHODES: It is, okay, thank you. Okay. This was, like I
said, directed to Commissioner Coletta.
Dear Commissioner Coletta, on behalf of the Bonita Bay Group
and the Bonita Bay Group Design Review Committee, we are in
support of Mrs. Rhodes' request for a side yard variance.
As you know, the neighborhood that Mrs. Rhodes lives in was
approved and constructed by the previous developer. The area is
Page 104
October 11, 2005
zoned for agricultural and includes five-acre minimum homesites of
which the majority have between one-half to one acre of buildable
area with the remainder encumbered by either drainage, conservation,
lake, or golf easements. As such, the homesites are quite large.
Under the existing agricultural zoning, the side setback generally
anticipates a five-acre usable site. The homesites approved by Collier
County during the previous developer's ownership do not allow the
full use of the five-acre minimum. Ag. zoning side yard setbacks are
in proportion to a five-acre homesite, and with a significantly smaller
buildable area, a smaller side yard back (sic) is quite workable.
Mrs. Rhodes received approval from the Bonita Bay Group's
Design Review Committee in June of this year, a copy which was
enclosed, approving her request for lanai area and her landscaping. In
addition, as I understand, Mrs. Rhodes' neighbors are in agreement
with her request as well.
We support Mrs. Rhodes' request for a side yard variance. Thank
you. Sincerely, Susan Watts, senior vice-president of development
operations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. RHODES: I also -- unless there's some questions, I also
would like to put into record -- when I appeared before the planning
commission, very cooperative. They explained to me very well how
-- that they really couldn't just -- couldn't just okay it because, really,
we are in violation, okay.
But one gentleman -- if I can, I reviewed the videotape of that.
And it was Mr. Kenneth Abernathy from District 4, and he said -- this
is after the motion had been made to deny the variance and before the
vote, this is when staff was asked for comments, he said -- oh,
regarding page 7 -- do we have an overview of the page 7? Would that
be something you would like to see that he was referring to in his
quote?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you just describe it to us?
Page 105
.-"'".+-~~,-,~~_._-"-"---''''''''''~_...
. U'<""_-_""""__"""'__"'"'__'
October 11, 2005
MS. RHODES: It's a picture of the two homes. My home, the
home next to it. It's a back picture looking forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, we have that. We're looking at that
right now.
MS. RHODES: Is it in there. Okay. He said, looking at the
photo at the bottom of page 7, it just strikes me that a year from now
or two years from now, nobody will know that there was even a
request for a variance. The next door neighbor doesn't care, there's a
hedge row between the houses. I don't think we have any choice but
to recommend disapproval, but I don't have any doubt what -- that the
BCC will approve this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. RHODES: If you have--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions by commissioners?
Yes, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. First I'd like to find out, is
there anybody to speak on this?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, I have one speaker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: After the speaker, I'd like to.
MS. FILSON: Diane Gargiulo.
MS. GARGIULO: Good afternoon. My name is Diane
Gargiulo. My husband and I live on Five Oaks Lane, two houses
down from the Rhodeses.
First of all, I want to say that we very much appreciate the rules
and regulations around zoning and the processes that one has to go
through in order to appeal for a variance.
We have a substantial investment in our property. If it wasn't for
this, we're fully aware of what could happen to our -- devaluing our
properties, so it's very important us to and well worth the time and the
effort.
We have a home two doors down from the Rhodeses, and ours
has a screen enclosure, always has. We're here to support the
Page 106
,-,-,-.__ ........1...
October 11,2005
Rhodeses' variance because, to me it's almost necessary. I can't
imagine living there without an enclosure. Now, there's deer that are
going to come and go whether or not there's an enclosure. The
raccoons, the skunks, the rabbits, or whatever, whether or not there's
an enclosure. One thing that bothers me most of all, besides the
alligators, are the snakes. And I just can't imagine living there without
a screen enclosure.
But there's more to it than that. It's the aesthetics of the
community. Most every house in the community has a screen
enclosure. The only ones that don't are models because builders
usually put up a model without a screen enclosure, just a fence.
But, you know, I just think that it's part of living -- and one thing
that I'm not sure was brought out, and I think it's kind of important, is
that we do not live on the golf course. We do not border the golf
course. We border a pond in front of us and a preserve behind us.
And so the aesthetics as far as the golf course goes doesn't even
come into consideration. There's only three houses on the street, and
we were there first. We were one of the very original occupants at
Twin Eagles.
And unless you have any questions, that's really all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Y es. Well, the reason for this
variance proceeding is for the commission to be able to look at what
you do have and to be able to read between the lines and be able to
adjust and make adjustments to what's been decided by fact of law and
what's been put down on the books as our code. And that's the reason
why you pay for the process. I can't remember what the fee is. I think
it's $1,000, is it? Two thousand -- $2,000.
MS. RHODES: Plus advertising.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just to be able to have the right
to come before the commission and the use of staff. You did your
homework, you did it well. You got the association to buy into your
Page 107
October 11, 2005
change. You got your neighbors' support, not only with no objection,
but to come out in favor.
And based upon that, I think there's sufficient reason to grant you
this variance, and I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion for approval by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand exactly where you're
coming from, but I think that with the size of the pool and things, I
believe that you could put up a screen enclosure with not too many
problems in it because I -- when I look at the piece of property, if you
went off on a slight angle at the one point, you would still meet the
minimum side yard setbacks that are -- or back yard setbacks that are
required by the -- by our LDC amendments, our codes.
And when I look at the criteria that was -- this was based on by
the planning commission, I think they looked at this very thoroughly.
And when I look at the conditions that it does not meet, I'm very
concerned about that.
I look very closely to any kind of variances, and I don't think that
there's any real hardship involved in this. That's my concern.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: To the residents.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Our rules are very strict, and
we try and stick by them all the time. But in cases where you can see
that this would be no -- not harmful to the property nor to the
neighbors, it would probably enhance the property somewhat, it would
just look symmetrically better, and I just -- I think that's exactly what
we're here for is to grant small exceptions when they make good
common sense, and so my second stands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well.
Page 108
October 11, 2005
Any further discussion by commissioners?
Public hearing -- public comments are closed.
Does staff have a presentation?
MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, principal planner with zoning
and land development review.
As you have in your executive summary, the planning
commission heard this petition and they recommended denial. Staff
has also analyzed this -- the guidelines that we have within the LDC,
and we did not find any land-related hardship for this petition.
There are no conditions that will ameliorate the impact of the
reduction of the setback, and the petitioner will be able to enjoy the
use of the land without this variance. So staff recommends denial of
this petition.
With that, I'll be glad to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to make one
correction to the disclosure. I did have a meeting earlier with Mrs.
Rhodes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well.
No further comments by commissioners?
I'm sorry. County Attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, just to address a little bit of the
comment from both motion maker, second, and Mr. Halas. And I
know you're all looking at the criteria for variances here, and the staff
and the planning commission looked at that criteria as well.
And you look at such things as compatibility with the growth
management plan. Is the granting of the variance the minimal that can
be done to reduce the unfortunate situation? You are able to
detennine yourselves, again, looking at the recommendations, whether
there is true hardship or not and if the property can be used. And I'm
kind of paraphrasing the criteria that you look at.
Additionally they ask, are there special conditions and
Page 109
October 11, 2005
circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant?
Another question, it may be a throw-away in the sense, have they done
anything to create this other than live there and have the structure as it
is? Did they purchase the structure and it was already there, could be
another question to ask.
Does the granting of the variance requested confer on the
petitioner any special privilege that is denied by the normal zoning
regulations? And it appears that, you know, one answer could be yes
in the sense that, a literal application of zoning application -- of the
zoning regulations comes up with a literal finding that this is not
available.
But ultimately -- and there are eight questions to be asked, and
one of them is, does a literal interpretation of the provisions of the
land development code work an unnecessary and undue hardship on
the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant.
So, you see, within these criteria, you don't have to find all the
questions, yes, that things are okay, you don't have to find all the
questions are no, but it does give you the broad inquiry that you need
to make to make an informed decision and achieve a result either
absolutely literal to the application of the LDC and the GMP or with
flexibility based upon particular circumstance you think that issue --
that exists here on these premises.
What I'm telling you is, that based on the facts that you have
before you, you have the ability to -- you have flexibility here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me -- let me just assist about
the special circumstances and conditions. And I think there is a
hardship in this case. If I view where the fence is today, to put a
screen enclosure further in by the pool, based upon the photos, it
probably would not happen, probably could not meet the setbacks
within the requirement if you removed the fence and just did a screen
enclosure.
Due to our code, and more important, the state code, you need to
Page 110
October 11, 2005
have some kind of protection around the pool enclosure, whether it be
a screen enclosure or a fence. You've got to protect people or kids
from wandering in and getting into it.
So to -- viewing of the findings, I see that this is a hardship. I
can view this and say, it's my impression that you would probably
have to fill in the pool in order to comply.
Does that answer your question, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it does. What I was -- I really wasn't
giving a question so much as indicating the fact that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You were just --
MR. WEIGEL: -- there are subjective measures to be applied
here, and both the planning commission and the staff have applied the
regulations and provided a recommendation to you of a particular
kind, but ultimately this board has the prerogative, albeit the duty, to
determine what is hardship under the land development code and
under the standards that are there for the granting or not granting of a
variance. And I can't tell you what that subjective discussion will be
or if, you know, one member will persuade a majority or not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If it would help, I'd like to
include that in my motion, that I do see that the -- if she wasn't able to
proceed with the screen enclosure, that it would cause an undue
hardship.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a question. Based upon the
diagrams that have been presented to us, the screen enclosure doesn't
really follow the same outline as the existing fence. You're actually
building the screen enclosure further away from the pool particularly
at the south -- perhaps the southwestern corner -- southeastern comer
than the fence. Is that -- is that true?
MS. RHODES: The request that we had -- the drawing that was
done was replacing the actual fence. It was at that point that we
encountered the setback issue is where that fence is setting. If we
came in the 30 feet required by the agricultural, then it was cutting
Page 111
"uII..n ..",.~...,...~".,.,
October 11, 2005
right across the patio, the corner of the pool. Aesthetically and I'm --
we're losing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All I'm saying is that based upon the
information we have, the corner at upper left-hand comer that we're
viewing right now, the fence now meets the patio just where those two
lounges are indicated.
Jim, can you -- yes. The fence, the fence cuts --
MS. RHODES: The line, the big dark line, is the fence, correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That -- that doesn't correspondence with
the one on the details of the partial site survey on page 11 of 36. If
you look at the two of those, they are different. So all I'm asking is,
are you -- are you planning to place the base of the screen enclosure in
exactly the same alignment as the current fence?
MS. RHODES: I'm going to ask my husband to help me concur,
but yes, because the patio pavers are out to the fence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. RHODES: In order -- then we're going to start taking out
patio pavers in order to move the fence --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you see what I'm saying though?
The upper left-hand corner of the photograph, or the diagram that's
shown here, the patio pavers are not out to the screen enclosure, so
that means that some additional land has been -- has been included
inside the screen. So it's not the least amount of expansion that you
could go to.
Am I interpreting this correctly, staff?
MS. VALERA: If I may, Commissioner, the proposed screen
enclosure is to go over the existing fence. The existing fence does
comply with the land development code because it's a four-foot fence,
and they don't have a setback limitation. Screen enclosures do. So
they just plan to remove the fence, and exactly in the place where they
have the fence, they will build the pool enclosure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I will accept your testimony
Page 112
October 11, 2005
on that, but I will tell you that the diagram on page 11 of 36 does not
show that. It shows a different alignment. It shows it meeting the
patio, and this particular alignment does not show it meeting the patio
at the upper left-hand corner.
So if you're testifying to the fact that the diagram on page 11 of
36 is incorrect, then I will accept that and we will proceed.
MS. VALERA: Commissioner, I don't find the page, but what
I'm saying is true. I mean, that is their intention that -- just to replace
the existing fence with the pool enclosure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. VALERA: Also wanted to note that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 6 of 11.
MS. VALERA: -- they will be able to still build a pool enclosure
if they were to comply with the setback. They will have to move --
they will have to modify the design of the existing fence, if you will,
and bring it closer towards the pool. I don't know if that will, you
know, employ redoing the pool or the plumbing, I'm not sure. But they
will be able, within the setbacks, to build a pool enclosure if they were
to reconfigure the design of the pool enclosure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just -- my light was on because I --
Carolina, would you please show us -- the dark line is where the fence
is, and isn't it this diagonal line that's going across the pavers is where
you proposed the fence -- the pool enclosure to be?
MS. VALERA: The dark line is the existing fence and where
they do propose to have the screen enclosure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MS. VALERA: This is the setback line, this one right here. So
in order for them to meet setbacks, they will have to move the screen
enclosure towards this line. And like I said, you know, moving it to
this line, they will have to reconfigure maybe the pool, I don't know.
But they will have -- in order to meet code, they will have to move all
Page 113
October 11, 2005
the way to this line that you have right here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further questions by
commissioners?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Commissioner, I think we need to rectify
the statement about where the existing fence is and what this diagram
says.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's clearly different in the packet.
MR. MUDD: It's definitely different in the packet. And if you
take a look at the picture, this picture looks like a straight shot back to
the building.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. MUDD: It doesn't take any jagged turns, as you see right
here. So this is the -- this is what I believe the existing feature is with
the fence that goes to the side and comes around and then goes all the
way out to the front. Is that correct, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it meets the patio in that upper
right-hand corner, you'll see, okay?
It does not meet the patio on the diagram that is shown on the
screen.
MS. RHODES: But it does meet here on this diagram. So this is
in error? This is correct.
MR. RHODES: It does meet the patio right up in that corner,
then it goes around. This is a gate to the outside.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to need to get you on the
microphone, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: State your name.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So which one is correct, the line drawing
that's there now?
MR. RHODES: This line is the fence currently today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that's exactly where the
screen enclosure's going to be also.
Page 114
October 11, 2005
MR. RHODES: On this side, we're not even really decided yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. RHODES: But up here, yes, that is definitely where we are
putting it. And we haven't decided whether we're going to come in
here or come on -- out here. So I mean -- but that won't be a problem,
I don't think, since it's not in the area that's in question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. The question that I'm raising is in
the upper right-hand comer of that particular diagram, and that is
different from the other diagram we were just shown as the location of
the fence.
MR. RHODES: That is the way the fence is right now, and that
is where we have quotations to put the pool enclosure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fine, thank you.
MR. RHODES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've answered my question then.
Thank you.
MS. RHODES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion on the table.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Halas dissenting.
Thank you very much.
MS. RHODES: Thank you very much. And I'd like to take the
opportunity to say that in the year that I've been pursuing this, the
Page 115
October 11, 2005
staff, everyone that I had spoken with, especially with the planning
commission, the Collier County, with Carolina Valeria -- Carolina has
been a terrific support. Of course, she didn't tell me what I wanted to
hear, but she did her job. She did it well, and Collier County and the
planning commission is very fortunate to have her on their staff, and
she is to be commended. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. We like to hear
that about our employees. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to -- 7B was
continued to the 25th of October.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2005-52: PUDA-2005-AR-7152; V ALEWOOD
PROPERTIES, LLC, REPRESENTED BY BRUCE TYSON OF
WILSONMILLER, INC., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE QUAIL II PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO
AMEND A TRACT DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCIAL TO
RESIDENTIAL USE, ALLOWING FOR AN ADDITIONAL 152
DWELLING UNITS, RAISING THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE
UNITS TO 512 UNITS. THE NEW R-l TRACT PROVIDES
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE SUBJECT SITE. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD (CR 846) - ADOPTED
Brings us to 8A. This item requires that all participants be sworn
and ex parte communications be disclosed. It's PUDA-2005-AR-7152,
Valewood Properties, LLC, represented by Bruce Tyson of
WilsonMiller, Inc., requesting an amendment to the Quail II planning
(sic) unit development, PUD, to amend a tract designation from
commercial to residential use, allowing for an additional 152 dwelling
units, raising the total allowable units to 512 units.
Page 116
October 11, 2005
The new R-1 tract provides development standards for the subject
site. The subject property is approximately 21.74 acres located north
of Immokalee Road, County Road 846, approximately --
approximately, and it says mile east. I guess it's a mile east ofl-75
interchange in Section 26, Township 48 south, Range 26 east.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Will all persons who intend to give testimony in this petition
please rise and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Now ex parte disclosure for
. .
commISSIoners.
Let's start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a whole bunch. How do
you want me to do this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Briefly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Briefly. Okay. I did go out to
Longshore and had a meeting with the residents and the petitioner.
Let me go through the phone calls. I've had numerous e-mails.ldid
talk to Don Stone, Megan Davis, Commissioner -- former
Commissioner Berry. I did speak briefly to Mr. Yovanovich on some
of the language within the PUD document.
Mr. Y ovanovich, do you want me to give any other disclosures?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that it, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've met in this office as well
as in my Marco Island offices with different members of the
community and as well as Bruce Tyson and Rich Y ovanovich. I've
Page 11 7
October 11, 2005
met with -- I've met with J anet Vasey -- oh, gosh, I'm trying to
remember all of the people's names -- Allen Riles, Royles, Raulerson,
Bob Myers. Well, just -- I have them all in my packet, members of
the community that I've met with as well as the representatives from
the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have met with the--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, and I've talked to staff as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have met with Mr. Yovanovich,
and I believe Mr. Arnold also was -- no, Mr. Arnold was not present.
Okay. I have met with residents of the surrounding communities, I
have received e-mails, telephone calls, and letters that are in my file
here concerning this project, and I've talked with staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I met with Mr.
Y ovanovich, Mr. Raulerson, Mr. Myers, Janet Vasey, other members
of the community, received e-mails, correspondence, and it's all in my
file for anyone that wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. In my file I have excerpts of
meetings, correspondence, and e-mails, and I have met with some of
the people that live in that general area that represented different
homeowner groups that had spent some time with me in my office in
regards to pros and cons to this particular proj ect. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. We can proceed
now.
MR. TYSON: Great. For the record, Bruce Tyson, landscape
architect and planner with WilsonMiller. I'm here with Rich
Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, our land use
attorney, Joe and Andy D'Jamoos of -- and as well as Brad Guarino
with J.E.D. of Southwest Florida, and Gavin Jones, a professional
engineer and AICP holder from WilsonMiller, who is our
Page 118
October 11, 2005
transportation planner who can answer any specific questions, should
you have them.
I know that you have been bombarded with a lot of information
along the way here as to what's going on, so I'll try to keep this brief
yet concise so we get -- make sure that all of the information that
we're dealing with gets on the record.
The goal of this project is to work within a -- the existing PUD
for Quail II and take a portion of that and change the zoning
designation right now of commercial, which is a C-3 zone, to a
multifamily residential zone with a density of seven units per acre.
The slide that you see on the screen right now, it's a little bit dark.
I'm going to change that. But this is -- in essence, you can see
the location of the Quail II PUD. You've got Longshore Lake to the
east, you've got Quail Creek to the north, you have Huntington Lakes
to the east (sic), and you've got estates zoning to the south -- excuse
me, to the west was the -- Huntington.
That's a little bit better. You can start to get a little bit of the
definition here as to what we're looking at.
The original petition on this asked for 12 units per acre, and the
reason for that was because we had a project that was of existing
commercial zoning, which in the growth management plan allows a
transfer to residential of up to 16 units per acre.
Looking at a reasonable project, however, it came back to the
point of where we were requesting 12. Subsequently to that, there's
been a number of modifications and changes, discussions with the
communities. And as you just -- or as I indicated earlier, that number
that we're asking and requesting for is seven units per acre.
One of the interesting points about this property is that it also, in
addition to working or considering in the transfer of coming up to the
density of a higher density than four as the base unit within the multi-
-- or within the mixed use district is the fact that we were -- are within
the activity center band, or we have an activity center number four.
Page 119
October 11, 2005
We're within a mile of that, and consequently, we're, therefore,
allowed under the growth management plan, to increase the density by
three units per acre. Before the three, of course, being seven.
When you do that, very quickly, what happens is that you have
an underlying density of the 194 acres within the Quail II PUD. At
four units would be 777 units. The density band bonus potential in
that would be 406 units at the three units per acre within the density
band.
And, therefore, the overall intensity as it would relate right now
to today, if we were coming in with a brand new raw project and this
was a raw piece of land, would be 1,183 units.
Including the 152 that we are requesting, the total intensity of the
Quail II PUD, including Valewood Village, is 512 units. That winds
up being 43 percent of what's allowed from the growth management
plan.
So it's relatively low. And I would think that -- matter of fact, it
comes out to 2.6 overall units per acre if you look at that number. And
I think if we were to bring that in as a brand new proj ect today,
assuming that all the other things were working, of course, I think that
would be, generally speaking, something that would be approval -- it
certainly would be reasonable within the regulations, and hopefully
would be approved.
One of the other factors of this project which helps to keep its
appearance low is the fact that from the standpoint that the water
management for this property has already been designated to go to
Longshore Lakes. It was part of an overall development, and
consequently no lakes will need to be built there.
If you think about it, a lake system typically takes up about 15
percent of a project. It just so coincidentally happens that that 15
percent, if we can build on it instead of build lakes, since the water's
going somewhere else, will actually take the number in the appearance
of this project to exactly six.
Page 120
October 11, 2005
So if it's spread out, the overall density from a project that would
be built here, from everything else that would be done in Collier
County, would look like a six unit per acre proj ect. Not to say that it
is. The fact is that it would look that way.
But most importantly, this project will not be commercial. I
think that when we've looked at this, we've taken a hard look at it from
the standpoint of all the other things that could be considered. We
spent a lot of time looking at what happens when you drive back into
Valewood Drive. It's got a beautiful canopy of live oak trees that exist
right there right now.
And when you look at the surrounding land uses on all sides
other than the south, that it would make most sense for this to be a
multifamily proj ect and a residential proj ect.
Consequently, when we looked at the traffic numbers, no matter
how we twisted, contorted, no matter what we did with them, we came
to the conclusion that a residential project, even at 12 units per acre
initially, would be far greater in terms of its minimal impact, meaning
lesser impact, that would occur on Immokalee Road and on Valewood
Drive with a residential project -- this is across the board on a daily
basis -- than it would if you were looking at any type of commercial
project.
And when you look at that from a standpoint of what would
likely be built there and now looking at it at a seven unit per acre -- as
a seven unit per acre project, what we will have in the morning is we'll
have an additional 50 trips onto Valewood Drive, which will increase
the Valewood Drive today's traffic, 9.1 percent, and that project also
will increase the entering traffic onto Valewood by 26 trips, or only
4.5 percent.
That compared to a typical commercial proj ect on 21 acres --
when we did that, we looked at one that would be a combination of
retail office and medical office. When you look at that combination,
the morning traffic would be 86 trips or 15.7 percent, but the p.m.,
Page 121
October 11, 2005
when you look at it, would -- would jump to a staggering 357 trips or
72.6 percent. And I think that's what got everybody inspired from the
standpoint that, within the communities to say, let's please look at this
and try this as a -- in this case certainly, to do this as a residential
project.
Now, as you can appreciate when you have something like this
going on, there are a number of concessions and conversations and
communications that need to be made. And I just want to run through
some of the highlights of these so that you're very aware of exactly
what's in the PUD today, because it is a little bit different from the
standpoint of what we had submitted originally, and then I will go
through a couple of modifications that are at -- that continue to come
in as that piece of paper that I handed you in the beginning so we can
look at those modifications and changes and just run through those.
Now, there is a small -- if you look at the upper -- I'll start in the
upper right and work my way down on this page.
There is a small section of wall that is incomplete between
Longshore Lakes and -- let's see if I can -- yeah, I'll just do it from
right here. That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
We have a small section right up in here from the wall to be
extended, as I indicated. We are looking to increase the height of the
landscaping that will be along the edges of the existing residential
Longshore Lake proj ect to the east, as well as the land that will be
affected in the roadway coming along on Valewood Drive.
And in essence, what we're going to do there is we're going to put
in trees that will be twice -- or excuse me -- half of the height of the
final height of the buildings. So in other words, if we had a 32-foot
building, we'll put in 16-foot trees in the buffer. At a minimum, there
will be 12 foot trees.
In addition, the setback of the buildings will be 50 feet. We will
wind up -- you know, in essence, if there is or where there will be a
central recreation facility, it will be in the center of the proj ect, and
Page 122
October 11, 2005
that's good for a number of reasons, mostly for the community itself,
the new community, so that people will be able to easily walk to it
instead of get in the cars and try to move around.
As I indicated before, that water management, the blue line is
where the water will wind up going over to Longshore Lake, and the
developer has pledged to pay 12 percent of the lake maintenance
requirements for Longshore Lake because they will be contributing
about that quantity of water as a proportion as it relates to the exist
Longshore Lakes proj ect.
Also now coming up to the top left and coming down, we'll have
a maximum building height of two stories or 35 feet. The minimum
unit size will be 1,670 square feet. The residential dwelling units
adjacent to Valewood Drive will be required to have a two-car garage.
The -- you can see the access point. We're assuming it will be
somewhere right in that zone on Valewood Drive, the primary access.
We'll have a 50-foot building setback from Valewood Drive, and
along Valewood Drive there will be a six-foot stucco wall that will be
-- in combination with landscaping.
A 20- foot building setback exists on the south, and there will be
also another access and egress point that you will see that will come in
directly from Commercial Drive.
Now, in addition to that, there will be leasing restrictions,
comments dealing with the type of roofing material, which will not be
asphalt. The developer of this property and owners will become a
one- fifth member of the Valewood Drive landscape maintenance
communication -- or committee, and they must work with what's--
with the other communities in contributing to the maintenance. And
during the construction of the project, that access will be restricted to
Commercial Drive.
Now, what I handed you earlier were some changes that have
taken place since the -- you received the PUD itself. And if you want
to follow along with me, you can. I've done this into the page number
Page 123
October 11, 2005
as to where those changes are, and then, secondly, I've just indicated
in bold the issues that we're looking to change.
And on page 12, paragraph 2, start -- in the second sentence it
starts to read, all leases shall be for a period of -- and we're going to
add the words, not less than 90 consecutive days. On that same page
in the table under the maximum building height, it will simply be two
stories or 35 feet. You will please delete, abutting Longshore Lake
PUD and Valewood Drive, three stories or 35 feet elsewhere. That's
to be removed. So the whole project is two stories or 35 feet.
And at the bottom of that table on page 12, the minimum
building area is 1,670 square feet, instead of 1,600 square feet.
On page 12, I think it's -- and I'm -- not 11, but paragraph Q. No,
it is page 11, excuse me. Each residential unit shall have a one- or
two-car garage. Each residential dwelling unit adjacent to Valewood
Drive shall have a two-car garage. So instead -- and this is a change
from what the planning commission voted on.
The planning commission had requested that it be a two-car.
And subsequent to that meeting, there's been a developer that has been
designated for this proj ect, we have worked that. We have talked to
the abutting community members. And, in essence, I think that
everyone is onboard with that comment right now. So, again, two-car
garages adjacent to Valewood Drive. Single-car garages everywhere
else.
And then we've added a couple of paragraphs. We already talked
about it a little bit. Two on page 15, there will be one paragraph D-l O.
It will be, all construction traffic would be restricted to
Commercial Drive or where Collier County requires construction acc
-- construction entrance to be located.
And another paragraph, following right behind that, will be
paragraph D-ll. If required by the traffic impact statement that will
have to be submitted as part of the site development plan review
process, the developer will build a right turn lane on Valewood Drive
Page 124
October 11,2005
at the proj ect entrance. If a turning lane is required, the Valewood
Drive building setback of 50 feet that's noted in the development
standards table shall be measured from the current right-of-way line
and not from the future modified right-of-way line that may include a
turning lane.
And then finally on page 16 under landscaping, a six-foot high
stucco wall with a hedge four feet tall on the roadside of the fence
shall be installed along Valewood Drive. The wall shall be
constructed prior to the turnover of the project to the homeowners or
condominium association.
Those are the changes. Those are the main things that we've
looked at. There's a lot of detail, obviously, that happened along the
way. But, in essence, that is where we are today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You had mentioned about the
live oak trees. Are they going to be remaining?
MR. TYSON: Those are not on the property that is under
question, so those do stay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I just --
MR. TYSON: Well, let me just rephrase that. Those are not
under the control of the developer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. When you said they're
there now, I thought, uh-oh, maybe they're not going to be there
afterwards.
Okay. I just wanted to say, just on the record, what a great
example you all have set with working with the neighbors. Everybody
was miles apart, and all I've heard were positive comments since then,
and I just wanted to say, that's a great example for everybody, how to
work with their neighborhoods. Thank you. Developers working with
neighborhoods.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
Page 125
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Tyson, on the PUD
document, page 16, landscaping, second paragraph down it talks about
a six-foot wall, according to the section of the LDC 5.03.02?
MR. TYSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The question is, is the
existing commercial a part of the PUD?
MR. TYSON: Existing commercial?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. TYSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is part of the --
MR. TYSON: It's not part of the amendment, but it's part of the
PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So now I get why they
are asking for that, because of the separation. Now, is that to be on
your side or on the commercial side are you supposed to construct that
wall, which side?
MR. TYSON: I'd love it to be on the commercial side, but I don't
think they'd like us to go over there and do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. TYSON: So we have to do it on the residential side.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. TYSON: The reason for that -- just -- let me just reiterate
here just a little bit. What had happened and what Commissioner
Henning is talking about was that that was a comment that came back
on our first round of comments because it wasn't in there. Right now,
this entire property is commercial.
So a commercial SDP was approved off of Executive Drive,
leaving a zone, in essence -- you know, matter of fact, I'll point to it.
And what happened was that when staff reviewed it, they were
looking at a commercial abutting property. So commercial to
commercial does not require any kind at all other than a -- the minor
landscape buffer.
Page 126
October 11, 2005
Now what we have is a situation of, once this is approved,
assuming it's approved today, then we're going to have a residential
property abutting a commercial property. And just to keep it
consistent, it got to the point of, in working with our client, it had
made much more sense for the residential developer in this case to
build a wall.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. And it's probably more
fitting on your property.
MR. TYSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next paragraph down about
the wall with Longshore.
MR. TYSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was that a request from the
residents, or a request from the county?
MR. TYSON: That was a request from the residents of
Longshore Lake.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. No request from the
county?
MR. TYSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You know, I have an
opportunity once in a while to -- well, I take the opportunity to try to
travel around and get the traffic impacts in Collier, and especially my
district, and I'm sure the others do, too.
Valewood in the morning is horrendous to try to get out of,
absolutely terrible. We don't know at this time -- it is under study --
where and if there's going to be traffic lights in this corridor.
And I'm really concerned about the density that you're asking
because of the traffic, just trying to get out on Immokalee Road.
Those are my comments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to ask if Norm Feder could
Page 127
October 11, 2005
maybe address something that Commissioner Henning just brought
up, and that's the traffic impact on Immokalee Road. Are we to look
at this additional 152 units as de minimis traffic?
MR. FEDER: Not sure -- for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator. I'm not sure you look at it as de
minimis in the sense that we've looked at the impacts, and with the
expansion to six lanes, we can accommodate that volume.
So I'm not declaring it de minimis. I'm saying that we have the
capacity available to handle it because of the six-laning.
Now, as we discussed, you're having a lot of cumulative impacts
in that area, and my statement is: Assuming that we continue forward
with the other improvements that are proposed in our long-range plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, this would be considered a
generator of traffic, right, if we approved this seven units per acre?
MR. FEDER: Residential is typically a generator. Commercial
ends up attracting, is an attractor of trips. They have a little bit
different trip characteristics. You generate more with commercial and
overall trips, but it's a little bit different timing than residential.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Residential would be -- basically
be generated at the height of the peak hour when everybody else is
going to work also?
MR. FEDER: That is correct, on Immokalee, which is a trip
from east to west journey into work, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How does this fit into the whole
equation here of Immokalee Road, 1-75 interchange presently, and
four or five years down the road?
MR. FEDER: Again, if we continue forward with the
improvements planned, the loop road, the six-laning, other projects in
our work program, such as Vanderbilt Beach Road, 951 extension and
other facilities of the sort, then we have the
capacity to address it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What happens if we don't have the
Page 128
October 11, 2005
ability to push Vanderbilt Beach Road out farther?
MR. FEDER: Then we've got a whole bunch of issues beyond
just this development.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other questions?
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could, one other response, Don
just reminded me, that the trips that we've assumed already in the
system, this was looked at as vested, so the trips are already in there in
effect.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Whether it was residential or
commercial?
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott. The trips were in there as commercial
previously. This was -- when Carlton Fields with the original vesting
analysis, that was assumed to be vested, so there are trips in the
system for this development. Obviously a commercial would be
higher than what they're asking for.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But we're looking at the
commercial basically absorbing this or being an attractor at different
peak hour times such as, say, nine in the morning until three in the
afternoon, or something of this nature; is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: Well, depending on the type of commercial, yeah.
I mean, it can also -- if you can be an attractor for the area and
people don't have to go out to the area, that's a benefit. Now, if it's
attracting from another area onto Immokalee, that's not a benefit, but
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Does staffhave a
presentation?
MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. Heidi Williams, principal
planner, zoning and land development review.
Most of my presentation's already been covered by Mr. Tyson. I
will just note this was found to be consistent with the growth
management plan.
Page 129
October 11, 2005
The neighborhood information meeting was held and well
attended. And I think that the response today, the proj ect that you see
today is definitely in response to concerns made there and in following
up -- following meetings.
The planning commission stipulations have all been incorporated
into this PUD document. Mr. Tyson did present the one change they
are requesting from that list, and that is to allow one-car garages in
addition to two-car garages.
The zoning review finds that a multifamily project in this
location could provide an adequate transition between the existing
commercial uses and the neighboring single-family uses, and so staffs
recommendation is for approval with the -- subject to the changes put
on the record today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When you state garages, you're
either saying that for each resident (sic), you're either going to have a
one-car garage or each resident (sic) will have a two-car garage; is that
correct? Just so long as we don't end up one and two, which will be
three-car garage.
MS. WILLIAMS: That's correct. It's as Mr. Tyson read into the
record under the garage section R -1 subdistrict.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you did say this meets the
growth management plan as it is today; is that correct?
MS. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have six public
speakers?
MS. FILSON: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the first public speaker.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Bob Shafto. He'll be followed by James
Kirk.
MR. SHAFTO: Mr. Chairman, my name is Bob Shafto. I'm
Page 130
October 11,2005
president of Quail Creek Country Club. I'm here to speak both for the
country club and for the homeowners' association.
I will take questions, interruptions any time you would like.
We spent a lot of time negotiating this subject, and I'd like to
spend just a couple minutes on the amendments, and we support the
amended PUDs that you've heard today.
I'd like to also -- I recognize it's under study and I recognize it's a
future decision on the part of Collier County, but I've been asked by
an awful lot of our residents to make a couple observations about the
importance of the traffic signal at Valewood. And it won't take more
than a couple minutes, but it's not on this subject, and these are not
tied together. They're totally independent. We are in support of the
density of seven units per acre, the heights not to exceed 35 feet,
minimum unit sizes of 1,670 feet, and other -- a series of other
amendments that you heard described, including the construction and
the wall. That support is unequivocal.
But I do want to now talk just for a minute. And I do recognize
this is a future decision. And they're not tied together. I don't want to
even imply they are. The importance of --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know your time is limited to three
minutes total.
MR. SHAFTO: Yes, I'll get there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SHAFTO: As you know, Collier County's made up of a
series of isolated PUDs, gated communities. It limits mobility and
limits traffic.
We have four gated communities all sharing Valewood Drive
after the construction. It's about a mile long. It dead-ends at a country
club, and it further dead-ends at a traffic signal.
It's our sole access of these four communities. And after
construction, there will be 1,335 dwellings. There's another 600 plus
or minus nonresident country club members that own the country club
Page 131
October 11, 2005
-- it's member-owned -- and employees that use Valewood.
Today, at peak season, it's very, very heavy traffic. I'm going to
show you some pictures though of the traffic that occurred about the
first of September. And all of this comes from our need to access
Immokalee. We get hung up trying to get onto Immokalee.
This picture was taken around the first of September, off season.
That picture was taken the same day, and you can see, if you can look
down there, the problem is, we can't get out because of Immokalee
Drive (sic). That -- the school bus has the same problem.
So our clear concern -- we support the additional traffic that
comes from this PUD. We have a traffic engineer that we got
involved, Gray Calhoun, they're a specialist. They're doing some
work for the county right now. In fact, they're timing your lights.
We had them look at all of this and concluded that the additional
traffic of seven units an acre would be acceptable on Valewood.
They did an analysis, a trip study. Total residential trips would
be about 10,000. Over time, traffic's going to increase, as everyone
knows, on Immokalee. We've got two residential stores being built,
we've got additional residents (sic) being built out east on Immokalee.
The buildout study, which a lot of us have read, shows that the
majority of Collier County is going to be east of951. The county's
decision here -- and I know it's under study -- will have a very
significant long-term impact on our community.
All of these communities, both residential and the country club,
plus the developers, are in agreement that it's very important that we
get this light, and it makes goods sense to us.
I appreciate your attention. And I also want to comment, all of
the county employees I've dealt with have been very friendly, very
cooperative, and I've found it a joy to deal with them. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is James Kirk. He'll be followed by
Marilyn VonSeggern.
Page 132
October 11, 2005
MR. KIRK: My name is James Kirk, and I'm the Vice-President
of the board for Longshore Lake. Longshore, as you probably already
know with the visits you've had from some of our members, is a
middle-class community, consisting of teachers, firemen, law
enforcement, small business owners, civil servants, quite a few
retirees, and a lot of professional working families.
I'm representing the approximately 1,500 people who live in
Longshore, and some of whom are here today, and I am speaking for
them so we won't take up your time with most of them speaking
individually. I'd like to point out, if the people from Longshore would
just rise, they took the time to come down here. Thank you.
Weare the only community which is really directly affected by
this rezoning because we live right alongside it. We have had several
meetings, including a town hall meeting, regarding this zoning
request. Our residents have consistently told us that they do not want
commercial property built in this area.
From the very beginning, Mr. D'Jamoos has worked with our
board to minimize the effects of his rezoning request in our
community, and all of our concerns have been met, and our requests
have become a part of the PUD.
We feel that the quality of life and property values of our
community are an important consideration for your decision today;
therefore, we are asking that you grant this rezoning.
Thank you very much for this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Kirk, for your
consideration, and thank you, all the residents who came down to
voice your opinion. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Marilyn VonSeggern. She'll
be followed by Robert Myers.
MS. VonSEGGERN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My
name is Marilyn VonSeggern. My husband and I are residents of
Longshore Lake. We are here today to request that you approve the
Page 133
October 11, 2005
rezone petition for the Quail II PUD.
As we stated in our e-mail to you, our property abuts the
Valewood Village development in question. I will not repeat all the
contents of the e-mail except to say that your approval of this petition
will provide the residents of our community with the best possible
solution to the inevitable development of this property. It will help to
preserve the character of the community, protect the property values
of the residents, and prevent the possibility of unwelcome types of
commercial development in our back yard.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Robert Myers. He'll be followed by Clay
Brooker.
MR. MYERS: Good afternoon. Commissioner Fiala mentioned
that we got to this point where I believe all four communities are
unanimous in our support for this modification, so we are all
applauding ourselves and lots of slings we're wearing from broken
arms, patting ourselves on the back.
But it was a rocky road, but we got there, and we're very pleased
to share this. Each speaker so far has claimed that their community
was the most important. We happen to be a part of this PUD, PUD II
is -- Pearl Village is a part of that. We rep -- I represent, as president
of the Pearl Village Foundation, about 1,000 people.
So, again, we -- I think we're all very, very pleased, and we -- we
beg you, if you will, to vote unanimously in support of the reality that
we have all agreed that this is the way we'd like to go in support of
this application.
And then to change the subj ect, I have a small commercial
message, and that is, in the planning meeting on September 1 st before
the planning commission, father and son D'Jamoos did commit to -- if
their application was approved, to contribute, I believe, $1,000 per
unit for affordable housing.
Page 134
October 11, 2005
I called Andy D'Jamoos yesterday just to confirm that so I didn't
surprise him today. So since everybody else is standing up, I'd like
Andy to stand up and support what was on a big headline here, I think
you all saw on Sunday . We have a huge problem in this county with
affordable housing.
So Andy, where are you? Do you acknowledge what I just
communicated?
MR. D'JAMOOS: Absolutely.
MR. MYERS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Myers, my wife is still
waiting for your phone call.
MR. MYERS: They told me I cannot, as part of this process, do
that. I'm willing to do it.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Clay Brooker.
MR. BROOKER: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker, which will be your final
speaker, is Donald Stone.
MR. STONE: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Don
Stone. My wife and I have lived in Quail Creek for 14 years. I am the
immediate past president of the Quail Creek property owners'
association.
Additionally, I'm familiar with the zoning and planning process.
I served for 10 years on a planning commission, a municipal planning
commission, in upstate N ew York. The last five years I was its
chairman.
F our years ago I worked closely with Commissioner Henning
and Norm Feder and the Department of Transportation resulting in the
obtaining of the traffic signal we currently have at Valewood and
Immokalee.
It was very disturbing this week to hear the rumor and then have
it confirmed that the county had spoken to the developer and asked for
funds to widen the bridge on Commercial Drive near the Mobil
Page 135
October 11, 2005
station, and also, it was even further concerning to look at the
amending PUD, and under the traffic improvement section, 4.01, there
is a requirement in the PUD that the developer pay a fair share toward
the traffic signal if, in fact, the county asks them to.
Just to expand a little bit on what Mr. Shafto said. The three
communities that use Valewood Drive, Longshore Lake, Quail Creek
Village, and Quail Creek, have about -- currently about 1,200 homes.
The property value within those three communities is close to $3
billion.
We ask for very little from the county. Our communities are
self-contained, maintain all of their own infrastructure. Our average
age is such that we're not a burden in any sense on the county's school
system, and it's unheard of to have a need for a deputy sheriff in our
community because we have zero crime, although they are very
helpful when we do call them.
Speaking of Valewood Drive, it's been in effect now about 20
years, almost 25 years, the county built it. And over the last 20 to 25
years, the county and the community have spent millions of dollars on
that road.
Most recently, about six years ago, the communities cooperated
with the county in enhancing the aesthetic appearance of the new
four-lane bridge on Immokalee and Valewood. In addition, we've put
in the medium (sic) decoration, floral arrangements, and so forth.
And for the past 20 years the three communities have paid for it
without any request for help from the county. All the maintenance on
both sides of Valewood Drive and all the beautification there.
It just seems unreasonable to us -- we're very much opposed to
any traffic signal at the Mobil station on Immokalee Drive (sic) or
Commercial Drive, and the reason being that it just doesn't make any
sense. There's no traffic there to speak of.
Valewood Drive has been identified as a main artery for the
service of the communities and the country clubs. We are very proud
Page 136
October 11, 2005
of Valewood Drive. And it seems to us that it would be just
unreasonable and not fair to expect the people in those three
communities to come down Valewood Drive, go over Executive
Drive, try and get into a queue on Commercial Boulevard (sic) near
the Mobil station to get out on the only traffic signal that would be
available, knowing that if they put a traffic signal in at that location,
that it's very unlikely that we would keep the one that we have at
Valewood.
So you, Mr. Chairman, and through you, Mr. Chairman, to the
commissioners, I would respectfully request that you ask the county
transportation department to be diligent in its review of the needs for a
traffic signal at Valewood Drive and Immokalee for the well-being
and the good of the people that live in those communities. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that request has already been
made. Thank you very much.
Okay. Any other --
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good, thank you.
Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just briefly. Student-Stirling asked me to
clarify the affordable housing parameters for the record. The money
would go to the Collier County Affordable Housing Trust Fund. It
would be paid $1,000 per closing of a residential unit; there's 152
units. And it will be paid within seven days of the closing. Margie
just asked that I put that of
record so the details were in the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: With that, I don't think we have anything
else to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions by
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
Page 137
October 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I still have a lot of
concerns about the traffic on Valewood. And we know that the density
on commercial conversion is not an entitlement. We have two
accesses, one on Valewood and one by Executive Drive.
My other concern is, with the conversion of commercial to
residential, is there really a need for improvements on Executive
Drive, the bridge there?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a question to staff?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess it's to Mr. Feder.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator. That is something we put in as a condition. That
condition could be either improvements -- actually right now we don't
have a signal at Valewood. What we have is heads that are connected
to the signal at Oaks. So the issue of the provision or the condition in
there is either for a possible signal, full signal at Valewood, if one is
removed from Oaks as we studied, or the possibility there at
Executive.
The widening of that bridge would depend on the traffic
volumes. It's now a bridge. Even if you didn't signalize it, if you
needed two lanes out, there might be some need to widen it. So we've
tried to keep our options open with the provisions written in there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- I appreciate that, but--
MR. FEDER: With a signal -- if there was a signal at Valewood,
probably less of a need to widen that bridge, is in answer to your
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But at going to
residential, how would they trip any improvement onto Executive
Drive and Immokalee?
MR. FEDER: Again, the issue at Executive Drive, Commercial
at Immokalee, is simply depending upon what the analysis study is as
we do the design build and as we look at our progression
Page 138
October 11, 2005
of signals. Depending upon how those signals are laid out.
Right now we have, with four lanes, a bit of a problem, but we
tried to do that for the Valewood community with the signal heads
attached to the Oaks signal. We're evaluating right now how we
would set up our signalization, which may well be at Valewood, and
that's part of what we're considering. But really, we need to look at
the Oaks and Valewood. Within a mile and a half, I have eight signals
at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Norm, is it fair to say that you're
studying the traffic problems and you're going to come to us with
recommendations about the best way to solve it?
MR. FEDER: And with the community, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And with the community. Okay, good.
So we'll be able to address that.
Any other questions by commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Mr. Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich, would your
client be willing to reduce the density to four units per acre?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, no. We're at
the minimum number we can go to, which is seven units per acre for
the proj ect to make sense as a residential development, otherwise, we
would have to -- we would stay with the commercial zoning that's
already on the property.
And I think what Mr. Tyson said early on is, if you were to look
at the traffic generated by a commercial project on this property, the
peak -- the morning peak hour, there would still be more traffic
generated than the residential we're talking about. So there is actually
a reduction to the morning hour traffic that would be on Valewood by
going to residential.
And overall, the p.m. peak hour, there's a tremendous reduction.
But even on the Valewood trips in the very morning, there's a
Page 139
"',"'-----""'"------.
October 11, 2005
tremendous -- there's a reduction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the problem is, you're not
counting the -- the attracted trips.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we have. And if you would like me
to, I could have Gavin Jones get up here and talk about the internal
capture and all of that that he talked about at the planning commission.
We have factored internal capture in, and there is less trips from
the residential at seven units per acres versus the commercial.
And keeping in mind that the full commercial development of
this property has already been factored into the traffic counts on the
road. So, in essence, we're giving trips back to the community by
going to residential. So you're, in essence, expanding, if you will, the
capacity on Immokalee Road by going ahead and doing this
converSIon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But also my concern is the
traffic on Valewood and having to exit that community, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's two exits to the community for
us. There's two exits for our community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, right, so in order to not
further exacerbate the problem on Valewood, and if you're not going
to reduce any density, would you remove the entrance and exit off of
Valewood and use the existing entrance, and that is -- that is what
your true entrance to that Commercial -- that property is right now.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I know you
want a -- I mean, I would like a Port Royal address too, but it's just not
going to happen where I live.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I understand that, and it's not going
to happen where I live as well. But there is already access -- even for
the commercial we'll have access on Valewood.
The project will make no sense from a residential standpoint if
we don't -- if we don't have the access on Valewood. So again, we
Page 140
October 11, 2005
cannot live with the condition that would give us no access to
Valewood.
And I believe -- what you've seen, I hope you've seen, is that
there's been a tremendous amount of effort from all the communities
in this area to come together with a proposal that everybody can
support. You haven't heard anybody speak against the proposal, and
that's different than at the planning commission. There's been a lot of
discussion since the planning commission to address the communities'
concerns.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I can understand if
somebody would threaten unwanted commercial uses in there. I
understand that. I know how it works.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I hope that nobody took that as a
threat. The existing zoning on the property is C-3. It was a reality of,
that was our options. Request residential or go with C-3 commercial.
I mean, that was our only choices.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only thing that I would ask,
that hopefully when this -- when we start to look at this proj ect, that
we'll have some interconnectivity, and I think that's great that we look
at Executive Drive as an opportune area for addressing another
entrance here. I think that is really needed here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to ask where the
other exit was?
MR. YO V ANOVICH: There's -- do you have the master plan?
There's one on Valewood, and then if you -- if you look right there, it
lines up with Commercial. If you were to extend that, there's going to
be a rear -- rear entrance to our --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's where.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- our project. I think that will show it
better. If you see, Commissioner, you'll-- right where -- the two stars,
Page 141
-...--." - ~..,".,^,-_..
October 11, 2005
there's an access on Valewood, and then there's a rear access that will
get us to, I believe that's commercial. And there's already an ability
for people to come down Valewood and take Executive over to
Commercial.
So there's -- there's an opportunity to -- two opportunities to get
onto Immokalee Road from that -- from Valewood, essentially.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, sir, you can't speak unless
you're at the microphone.
Okay. Any other questions by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve
with stipulations that all leases are for the period, not less than 90 days
and consecutive days; that two stories or 35 feet be the maximum
height; that the minimum building size will be 1,670 feet; each
residential unit shall have one- or two-car garages; each residential
(sic) adjacent to Valewood will have two-car garages; construction
traffic would enter Commercial Drive; and all the other stipulations on
what Mr. Tyson presented except for after -- there will be no -- the
walls on Valewood and abutting Longshore will be constructed before
any vertical (sic) construction takes place.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, are you also going
to add the -- for each residential unit they're going to put $1,000 into
the affordable housing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I think that's -- I can add it
in there. I think that's part of it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And also I wanted to -- and Bruce is
going to talk about the wall, but I wanted to clarify, the height is two
stories not to exceed 35 feet. There's some confusion. It's two stories
or 35 feet. It's not exceed.o
Page 142
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. TYSON: On the comment dealing with the construction of
those walls, first of all depending upon their actual location, it can get
very confining for the building of a project and making sure that
everything gets worked out.
So if you're going to actually build a finished wall, if you think
about it, that's the last thing typically that gets done on any project, is
the landscaping, because the ground gets trampled by all of the
construction equipment.
Now, I would think we have no problem with putting up a
construction fence that is the equivalent of a silt fence that's black
that's six feet high, along there, but it's a temporary thing so that
nobody can see in, and the people, generally speaking, in terms of the
construction, wind up respecting that line.
But to put up a finished wall and expect it to be finished a year
after construction starts is -- you know, chances are, it's going to be
pretty difficult to make that work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you need to work within
the confines of your project anyways. The wall is going to be on the
perimeter of your project. And why should the Longshore people
have to put up with that? That doesn't make sense. And why should
any other community -- I mean, you could put up a wall. Stucco it
later when you're done.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Commissioner, this issue is not a
new issue. Wernet with the communities about this issue, and it was
agreed that -- actually the original language was, we can put it up
whenever we wanted to, and that's what was what the communities
agree to. We had actually limited it to basically say that we'll do it
prior to turnover so there was a finished date for when that thing --
when the wall had to be built.
But the timing of the wall construction was discussed and was
resolved with the communities, so I believe it's fair to say that the
Page 143
October 11, 2005
communities are comfortable with the way the PUD is written today
as far as the timing of the construction of that wall.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, I have the vote up
here today.
MR. TYSON : Well, we understand that too for sure. But the
other thing that happens is you have easements that come through
there for conduits. They have to be put in first before the wall gets
constructed over the top of them. There's a number of things like that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All your site plans should be
accommodated. You're talking about your conduits of either storm
water or --
MR. TYSON: Or for electric, for any of
the -- typically it's not -- you know, it's the power things, power, cable,
things like that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And all those are done at site --
site development.
MR. TYSON: They're normally done in advance of vertical
construction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In advance of, and that's what
I'm saying.
MR. TYSON: The horizontal is done in advance of the vertical.
You're asking us now to do the vertical in advance of the horizontal, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what I'm asking, before
any horizontal --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Vertical.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- vertical, that the walls be
constructed. Did I say it the other way around?
MR. TYSON: No, now I understand what you're saying. That
means that there can be a lot of horizontal work done --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All your site planning.
MR. TYSON: And the site prep done, and then do walls along
Page 144
October 11, 2005
with the vertical construction. As long as we -- can we start both of
those at the same time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Sorry, my apologies.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I may, I don't have the authority to
agree to that condition because of the contract purchaser. If that's
something that's going to be an absolute condition, I would request
that you can give me a few minutes to make a phone call because the
purchaser's not here, so I don't want -- I don't want to take a stand if
that's an issue that we absolutely have to take a stand on unless I've
talked to the purchaser. And I don't know if that's something the
commission is going to require the wall constructed prior to vertical or
not, but I don't -- I would hate to have an un --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I ask a question? Whose need are
we trying to satisfy here?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we're trying to satisfy the needs of
the community, and the community has said they're comfortable with
the wall -- the construction schedule we were talking about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I see the hands of the people who
want to do this this way?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Which way?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Build the wall first. Is this an important
consideration for you?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, that's fine, but I think it
can be accommodated. When you have turnover, it could be five, six
years from now. And why would you have to put up with that? But if
you're fine with that, I'm fine. I was just trying to give you some
extra.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. If it's something that we need to
do to protect the interest of the community, maybe we ought to
consider changing the LDC to do that.
Page 145
October 11, 2005
But Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just wanted to ask, all we're
talking about is this wall over here where this little yellow line is,
right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that was -- that was a part
of it, and then the red line also.
But, again, I didn't see any hands raised, so I'm going to remove
my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you're removing the motion or
you're just removing that particular stipulation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, okay. I'll just remove that
particular stipulation of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And then you have a second, I
believe, don't you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By Commissioner Fiala.
No 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 carries unanimously. Congratulations.
Thank you all for coming.
Page 146
October 11, 2005
(Applause.)
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2005-53: SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PUD, ST.
GEORGE GROUP, CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY D.
WAYNE ARNOLD, OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES,
P.A., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RESIDENTIAL
MUL TIPLE- FAMILY -6 (RMF -6) TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) TO BE KNOWN AS THE SANTA
BARBARA LANDINGS PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RADIO ROAD AND SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you could leave quietly, we're going to
continue.
The next item is 8B. This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
Santa Barbara Landing PUD, St. George Group Corporation,
represented by D. Wayne Arnold, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates,
P.A., requesting a rezone from residential multifamily 6, RMF-6, to
residential planned unit development, RPUD, to be as the Santa
Barbara Landing PUD for property located at the Southeast Comer of
Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 4, Township 50
south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all persons who are going to
give testimony in this hearing, please stand to be sworn.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Ex parte disclosure by
commISSIoners.
Page 147
---,~--,-,.,.._,. .'. ..>."
October 11,2005
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On this particular item, I only had
correspondence, and, of course, I discussed this with staff yesterday in
my pre-meeting here. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I had meetings. I met with,
not only staff, but Rich Y ovanovich, Wayne Arnold, Bill Hoover, A.I.
Buccello (phonetic), probably murdered that name, and Alfred Zicoro
(phonetic). I did. Well, anyways, forgive me sometime, okay. And I
have correspondence, and it's all available, for anyone that wishes to
see it, in my folder.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's Polish. He's not Italian. He just
spells it differently.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Capice?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have met with the petitioners and
their representatives, and Mr. Y ovanovich, I believe.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you were there, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have met with Mr.
Yovanovich and Mr. and Mrs. Buccello, and I got a nice note from
them, as well. Each one of them signed it. I thank you for that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received two e-mails from
Laurie Young and one anonymous letter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, go ahead.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Great. Good afternoon. For the record,
Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of thé petitioner. Also here is Wayne
Arnold, who is the planner on the project, as well as his firm has done
some of the engineering related to the rezone request. And you met
Mr. Buccello.
Page 148
October 11,2005
Today before you you have a request to rezone some RMF-6
property to a residential PUD. The property is located at the comer of
Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard.
Weare requesting a rezone from the RMF -6 to seven units per
acre. The property is located within the activity center, residential
density band, which is at Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara
Boulevard.
We have worked with the residents of Plantation, which is our --
which are our neighbors to the east. And in that we -- they had a
couple of requests as we went through the process. They requested
that we construct a wall along our east boundary for the entire length
of the PUD. There currently does not exist a wall in there, and we
agreed to construct that wall.
They also asked us -- and it's difficult to see, I believe on the
visualizer -- to reconfigure -- maybe this will work a little better, Jim.
That was the -- Jim's going to put up there the original master
plan. They asked us to relocate -- relocate these buildings right here.
Do you see that on there?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You get to get on the mike, Rich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. They asked us to reconfigure
the buildings right here and put them like so to increase the preserve
closer to them, which we worked with them, and actually that request
came at the planning commission meeting, and we made that change
with them at the time.
We have -- this is a -- an existing apartment complex that's going
to be basically converted to a condominium.
I think it's important to understand the price points of the units in
this area, and who -- who we are intending to serve with the -- with the
project.
We have committed that a minimum -- and this is a minimum
number -- of 50 percent of the units will be sold for less than
$240,000. The reality is, we believe more will be sold for less than
Page 149
"......___..fi
October 11, 2005
that amount, but that's the minimum number that we're going to
commit to that.
We've also agreed that, you know, 10 percent of the units will be
set aside for gap housing. Individuals will have to qualify for gap
housing, which is between 100 and 125 percent of the median income.
And we have also committed that 50 percent of the units have got
to be the primary residence. We do not want an investor-purchased
community. So we are attempting to make sure that we are serving
people who need homes in this price point, that these units will not be
snapped up by investors, and we want at least 50 percent of the units,
and probably more, will be the primary residences for people who live
there.
We have also agreed to kind of follow the standard that's been
recently established regarding affordable housing, and for the new 43
units that we're requesting, we would -- we would make a contribution
to the same Collier County Affordable Housing Trust Fund of $1,000
per closing paid within seven days of the closing, as -- so I believe we
have taken into consideration quite a range of housing that really
needs to be addressed in this community.
There's only one -- there's only one staff condition, and I think
they -- it's an error in what the planning commission said. There's a
condition in there that says that we will not have more than four units
per acre on tract B. Well, tract B is about six units -- six acres, so
we're going to have a -- we're going to have about seven units per
acre.
What we committed to is we would not have buildings that were
greater than four-unit buildings, and that's the commitment. It's not
four units per acre, but it's the buildings will be not greater than four
units.
There were a couple of others things that, you know, we've
agreed to do for the benefits of the community overall. There's a
comer clip that is needed for improvements to Santa Barbara, and we
Page 150
October 11, 2005
have agreed to give that to Collier County, and also we were requested
to make a cash payment for the sidewalk to be constructed in Santa
Barbara Boulevard. The county's going to be improving Santa
Barbara Boulevard. And they were -- asked us to make an additional
payment above our impact fees for the sidewalk, and we have agreed
to do that as well.
I think that hits the highlights of the project. I would request that
you recommend approval -- or actually not recommend, you get to
vote -- that you adopt the requested PUD as I've outlined it and as
your staff has outlined it, with that one change to the staff condition,
that there be four-unit buildings and not units per acre.
And with that, we look forward to moving forward in working
with the sheriffs department, the school board, the county, and the
hospital to make some housing available to people who really need the
housing in this community.
And with that, I'll answer any questions you may have regarding
this particular petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Let me first say,
I was delighted to meet with these folks and talk about this housing.
There's a great difference between affordable housing and gap
housing. I'm sure that you might be aware of that. With gap housing,
which is above $150,000, it fills the gap of those -- that price range of
homes that will -- we keep talking about, but we keep labeling it
affordable housing, except the teachers don't qualify for affordable
housing, but they will qualify for something like this if investors don't
go in and buy it up off of the market.
And so I had a very lively conversation with these wonderful
people and asked that they be deed restricted so that they're sold to the
people, the owner-occupied primary-domiciled residents, and that way
then we can be assured that we are going to be filling some of this
housing that right now is falling between the -- the gaps.
Page 151
October 11, 2005
Another thing that I have suggested to staffmembers, Joe, Jim, I
mentioned it to these people, but I mentioned it more clearly to the
other ones, and that is, we need a clearinghouse.
Mr. Bocelli was -- Buccello, I think I'm thinking of the opera star
right now, Bocelli, right, Andrea Bocelli? He was saying he'd be
happy to do this. He's got investors who would buy five- and 10-unit
clumps, and they would love to buy up this price range.
He said he would do that, but he has to know how to market this.
So I'm going to be working with them closely because this is a direct
answer to what I'm working on with my gap housing committee. But
we need a clearinghouse.
I'm not saying it must be through the county. I don't know if we
can even do that. Maybe through the chamber, maybe through the
EDC, and we'll get that thing together pretty quickly at our next gap
housing meeting so that when houses go on the market and we want
them to be purchased by those who need and cannot buy this type of
housing because they don't qualify for affordable, I want them to be
able to go to one sole source and have all of that housing listed, so I
wanted to say that on the record.
And as far as I'm concerned, this is exactly what we're trying to --
this is the housing that we're trying to stimulate, and we've got some
right here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did I hear a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With -- mentioning that it will be a
for-sale product deed restricted to owner-occupied primary-domiciled
residence.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't forget the $1,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. And 43 units will pay
$1 ;000 for affordable housing into the Affordable Housing Trust.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
Page 152
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only thing that I'm concerned
about that this was RMF-6. And I understand where this gentleman's
trying to go and he's trying to address affordable housing, but I'm also
concerned about the impact, and I guess this is in a TCMA traffic area.
But I'm concerned, as I brought up in the other issue that came
before us, again, we look at this as a di minimis traffic, and I'm
concerned that if we keep having other PUDs come before us to
increase density where we've already established that, I'm wondering
where that's going to lead us as far as traffic impact for other citizens
here in Collier County. Maybe Norm Feder can address this, or Don
Scott.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. It will fail the concurrency test
whenever we reach that point and no further densities will be allowed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, that was something --
Commissioner Halas, I was so glad you brought that up, because that
was what my concern was as well, and I quickly called upon Norm to
tell me if these 43 units are going to change the composition of that
roadway, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I don't think the 43 units are
going to change. My concern is that as each developer decides that
he's going to get involved in this -- get involved and wants to increase
his density, that we're going to end up with a problem here, I believe,
down the road. I just want to get that information out so that I have a
better understanding of what's happening here in this whole TCMA
area.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning.
I think Commissioner Coyle kind of touched on that too. This--
approving today still, they're still subj ect to concurrency. This proj ect
-- the other one wasn't de minimis. This one is de minimis on the
links, but also we have a lot of improvements programmed for the
Page 153
October 11, 2005
area, like Santa Barbara, the six-laning from the Parkway down to
Davis, Santa Barbara Extension, Davis further on with FDOT. So we
have a lot of projects in the area that address the increase in traffic.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other question I have is
-- and this will be for Rich or whoever would like to address this. You
said that we're going to be addressing gap housing. And did you say
that it was 150,000 price --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no. I said it's between 100 and 125
percent of the median income. So those people will have to verify that
they're making less than 125 percent of the median income.
Now, we're committing that 50 percent of the units overall,
minimum of 50 percent, will be sold for less than 240. So, you know,
you're talking probably very reasonably or moderately priced housing
by Naples' standards to serve -- to serve the workforce.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So when you say it's lower -- some
of these units are going to be lower than 240,000 --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll have some that will be under 200-.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's your best guess that it
may be? Is this where the 150,000 --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. The affordable -- I think you're
using the term affordable. But we're probably going to have -- how
many percent?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, just tell me basically is it
going to be around 175,000 or--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we'll probably have 50 percent of
our homes that will be less than 200-.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is within the reach of the people
that we've identified as gap eligible --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Because remember, we're not talking
about a person, one person, who makes, let's say, $75,000. We're
Page 154
October 11, 2005
talking about family income, not individual income. We're talking
about total family income, no individual income
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. When I said that number, it
was, if you've got four workers in the family, it's go to be less than
that; two workers, one worker, it's got to be less than that threshold.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask one question, and that is,
this is including paying the impact fees; is that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's raise impact fees really fast.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, please don't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your deviations, have we cut
those down?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe staff was okay with all of the
deviations. The only issue I think was one with the sidewalk, and
that's been resolved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That one I'm not concerned
about, but I'm more concerned about the street right-of-way, street
width.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's a -- that's a standard width of
right-of-way that you find for private roads within the PUDs that are
coming through. These will be private roads, not public roads.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So -- and keep in mind that you're talking
about 248 existing units already, so there's kind of more like
driveways through that community, and then the additional six acres,
we're talking about 50-foot right-of-ways in there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. So the existing, you
just want for it to stay the same?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
Page 155
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other one would -- oh,
okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry if that wasn't very clear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does -- we have no public speakers.
Does staff have a presentation that they feel they need to make?
MR. DeRUNTZ: We'll pass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to pass.
Okay.
Any other questions by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Just for some clarification. I just want to make
sure that we tie in this median income in this 50 percent and the units
less than $240,000 to make sure that we're getting it, exactly what we
want to get to, those professionals and their salaries.
Now, just for clarification, you know, somebody could come in,
say, median income -- and I come up from up north and I come down
here, and I say, my median income -- and it could be my retirement
pay -- is blankety-blank, and I show it to this particular developer;
therefore, I qualify for this unit, but I don't work for anybody, and, see
-- so I'm worried that we don't have that tied quite tight enough yet to
make sure that that 50 percent, okay, that gap housing and those units
that are going to be less than that $240,000 that are going to be deed
restricted are locked in correctly, okay, because there's 50 percent that
aren't, okay. So we've got to tie that 50 percent just a little bit tighter.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And let's clarify that. Ifwe need to
clarify, and it's 10 percent gap housing, 50 percent will be sold for less
than 240-, but 10 percent is set aside, guaranteed, to people who fit
into the gap. It means more. We can obviously provide more, and
we're hoping we'll get more because we're setting aside this number of
units in those price points, and we're going to work with Collier
County, the school board, the sheriffs department, and the hospitals to
Page 156
October 11, 2005
get the word out that these units are out here, please -- we want to give
you first priority, if you will, through advertising, to come and use --
buy these units.
Jim, if you've got an idea of what you want me to say as far as on
the 10 percent to make sure I don't sell you a unit because you're not
working anymore, we want to -- we want to make sure that we don't
have you take up one of those units. So do we need to say it's --
MR. MUDD: Cormac, can you give me some specificity on this?
MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Good afternoon. For the record, Cormac
Giblin, housing and grants manager.
From my notes in the back of the room, I think I heard 50 percent
of the units would be sold for $240,000 or less, 50 percent of the units
would be restricted as on owner-occupied units only, and of which all
of that, 10 percent must go towards households earning between 100
and 125 percent of median income.
The first clarification is, I'd like to know if the 50 percent that sell
for less than 240- are the same 50 percent that are going to be
restricted to owner-occupied. I think that's the first point that should
be clarified.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was the intent.
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Yeah.
MR. GIBLIN: And then to the question at hand then, that other
-- or that 10 percent that are the gap housing units, how do we monitor
that? Who do we accept as a workforce housing client or fits that
mold? We can certainly share our --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You.
MR. GIBLIN: We can certainly share our income qualification
forms with the developer, with which he can submit his PUD
monitoring reports as part, using those forms, to make sure that
everyone who buys one of those units fits the definition that the board
is creating.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that's the point that we're getting at.
Page 157
October 11, 2005
We don't have anything that specifically says that you've got to be
employed in Collier County to meet those income requirements.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we can add that -- we can add that as
a requirement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you legally?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe we can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can -- we can go ahead and require
that 10 percent be employed in Collier County. I think that's -- I don't
think any body's done that to date. I mean, I don't think anybody's
made that absolute -- I mean, even -- I think even your affordable
housing guidelines don't require that a person who buys the unit
actually works in Collier County. I mean, theoretically they could live
in Lee. But we would like to be able to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, does that
make you happy?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And I just -- I
think all of us are concerned that when we provide housing at this
reasonable price, that we'll have a lot of snowbirds come down here
and take up these units, and I think that's our biggest concern, not so
much where they're going to work, but the idea that people can come
down here and find out that they've got reasonable housing and they
take it away from the people that we really need to address, and that's
the people that take care of the infrastructure of Collier County.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I agree, Commissioner Halas. And
we've talked to Commissioner Fiala about getting the word out. But I
also can't -- I can't limit myself -- I've got to be able to sell the project,
sell the product.
We want to get the word out. We believe by getting the word
out, there's going to be a lot of demand from the people who need it,
Page 158
October 11, 2005
but that's also, you know, part of making sure that they come and buy
the product.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But people watch this television
network, and they're probably on the phone right now to one of their
uncles up north and saying, hey, I got a heck of a deal for you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you're specifying that 50 percent of
them can only be sold to full-time residents --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Primary residents --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- of Collier County.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So they have to meet the homestead
requirements of Collier County before they can even buy that 50
percent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. They have to be domicile.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So they've got to stop being snowbirds,
at least most of the year. But nevertheless --
MR. YO V ANOVICH: I mean, Commissioner, we're doing --
we're trying to button up every loophole there is out there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've gone further than any other
developer has gone.
MR. BUCCELLO: May I say a word?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Please state your name for the
record.
MR. BUCCELLO: A.J. Buccello --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BUCCELLO: -- for the record. My only
concern -- 1'd be more than happy to agree, have agreed to every
single request made to us. But also, what happens if we try and we
cannot meet that 50 percent -- I believe you and I spoke about that,
Mr. Chairman -- within a period of 30 days, 45 days, whatever is
customary down here, what do I do? Do I come back to you?
Page 159
October 11, 2005
If I try, Commissioner Fiala, to proceed in the direction that I
want to go -- because as most of you know, I'm also a member of the
National Housing Development Corporation, which is a largest
affordable housing entity in the United States. So I've been involved
in affordable housing for many, many years, way before this.
What happens if after that we try, we -- school board,
government offices, everywhere, Mr. Chairman, and we do not sell
that 50 percent, not under the 240-? And just to answer your question,
Commissioner, we will be selling quite a lot more for less than 240-.
As a matter of fact, without a commitment being made at this time,
they'll be less than 190-, probably less than 185-. But the commitment
is less than 240-.
What happens if -- my only concern is that 50 percent to primary
residents. What happens if we did not succeed; may I come back to
you?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you can come back to us for
relief from some of these stipulations.
MR. BUCCELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He's going to sell them. I think
they're going to sell like hot cakes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, they will, yeah.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Coming back to us, it might be
something that we want to put in the inventory for future employees or
something.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We think we're going to be able to sell
those units, but obviously we want to have the back-up plan. We just
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We will probably send you a list of
prospective buyers.
Page 160
October 11, 2005
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would like that, but I cannot -- there
will be no commissions.
MR. MUDD: Especially for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala for approval, I think seconded by Commissioner
Coletta, if I remember correctly.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much.
MR. BUCCELLO: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that -- would you like to take a
break?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. We need to take a break.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item #10K
APPLICATION BY PACE CENTER FOR GIRLS,
INCORPORATED FOR THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT
PROGRAM AND THE ADVANCED BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr.
Chairman, you have a hot mike.
Page 161
October 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to move to item
1 OK. We have people in the audience waiting.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That used to be item 16A20. It's a
recommendation to approve the application for Pace Center for Girls,
Incorporated, for the Job Creation Investment Program and the
Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Program, and the item was moved
at Commissioner Henning's request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I thought in our discussions
on our one-on-one, it was actually 16A20 and 21. If there's -- it's just
a personal-- that I can't support things for not-for-profit from--
coming from the taxpayers. But anyways, if there's a motion to
approve, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Which item are we on?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're on 10K and 10L.
MS. FILSON: Yes. On 10K I have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to approve, would
you like to waive?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'll waive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MS. FILSON: I have Theresa Miller and Pat Barton.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Both waived, okay.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 162
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1 with Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe I read 10K. Do you want
me to read 10L just for the record, okay, and take a separate vote on
that particular item?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, let's do that. Let's
do them separately, okay.
Item #lOL
RESOLUTION 2005-354: 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 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10L, and it's a 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,
which is also known as the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance, in the amount of $42,966.29 for the Pace Center for Girls,
Incorporated.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
Page 163
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4-1 with Commissioner
Henning dissenting. Thank you very much.
Item #10F
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF LEGACY ESTATES,
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY. ITEM TO BE
PLACED ON REGULAR AGENDA COUNTY MANAGERS
REPORT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC PETITION 6A FROM BOARD
AGENDA OF JUNE 28~ 2005 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd also ask you, because there are
some people here that have been here all day long, to take a look at
1 OF. And this has to do with Legacy Estates. If we could do that one
next, I think it would be greatly appreciated, and maybe we can get
some people home.
Page 164
October 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Sir, that is 10F. It's the Board of County
Commissioners' consideration of a final subdivision plat in quasi -- is
quasijudicial.
Consequently, all participants are required to be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by individual commissioners.
Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of the
Legacy Estates, approval of the standard form construction and
maintenance agreement, and approval of the amount of the
performance security. Item to be placed on the regular agenda, county
manager's report, pursuant to public petition 6A, from the board
agenda of June 28, 2005, and Mr. Joe Schmitt will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll have to swear in everyone.
Anyone planning to give testimony in this hearing, please stand to be
sworn In.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
And ex parte disclosure; Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is -- I've had -- I've had
numerous contacts by the residents, I also have had discussions with
the person that's going to be doing the presenting today, and I've also
talked with staff on this. I believe I've had numerous e-mails and
correspondence with the residents in this particular area also, and it's
all in my ex parte here if anybody would like to look at that. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I've had a number of
meetings, correspondence, talked to staff about it, and it's all in my
folder for anyone that wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I've had no contact with anyone
representing this petition.
Commissioner Fiala?
Page 165
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had a bit of
correspondence, and also I've spoken with staff briefly. I caught
Russell Budd and Jack Pointer out in the hall, and for about 30
seconds, I said, do you know about this, and they answered yes, but I
didn't get much of an answer. So that's about -- except for Russell said
that -- he just gave me such an ever-brief note as I was running
through the door. So there wasn't much of any comments on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just the petition that was on our
agenda previously from one of the residents.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay. Mr. Budd? How are you?
MR. BUDD: Very good. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My
name is Russell Budd. I'm president of Lakeland Avenue, LLC,
which is the corporation that owns this property. I'm also one-tenth of
the ownership along with nine other people that I work with, including
our reception -- excuse me, receptionist, members of the county staff,
field superintendent, project managers. It's a group of us that work
together that acquired this property.
Staff has an overlay up, but I just wanted to give some context in
the community of where it's located.
So that you can figure out where it's located, this is Immokalee
Road, traveling east/west across the bottom here. Livingston Road
traveling north on the right-hand side, and then the subject property in
the center, which is highlighted, and then I'll defer to the -- little bit
more of a blow-up so that you can see the property and the immediate
adjacent residential neighborhood.
We purchased this property approximately two years ago with
this existing zoning in place. There, to my knowledge, is no zoning
overlay, and the existing zoning has been on the property for quite
some time prior to our acquisition.
As you note in your executive summary, the applicant has the
initial burden of showing that the application for final subdivision plat
Page 166
October 11, 2005
meets the requirements of Chapter 1 77, Florida Statutes, and the
Collier County Land Development Code, and I offer evidence of that,
meeting those requirements that we have had submitted, reviewed, and
administratively approved our preliminary subdivision plat and the
prime PPL application.
We concur with the staff recommendation that this application is
in complete compliance with the land development code, growth
management plan, and all applicable codes and ordinances.
This is not a rezone. This is not a variance request. We're not
requesting any deviation or any exception whatsoever from the land
development code.
And I request your approval in the recording of this final plat.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Questions by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does staff have a presentation?
MR. KUCK: For the record, Tom Kuck, Engineering Director
for CDES. I'm going to defer to a couple of the drawings that I've
posted up and walk you through the proj ect. Thank you.
What I have here is a map. This is the five acres that's proposed
to be developed with 14 lots on it. The current access is what I have
shown here highlighted in yellow right up through here. There's a
30-foot easement. This is a quarter, quarter, quarter, maybe one more
quarter section line here, but there's a 30- foot access easement on this
side of that line and a 30- foot access easement on this side of the line.
They originally were proposing the center of the road and build it
likes it's shown here. There was opposition from the neighbors,
neighboring property, the Nelson property, which lies right here.
There were several meetings with the county attorney's office,
and Jennifer's here and might be able to answer some questions on that
if you have any.
What we have done, they asked for a substitution on the land
development code in section 10.2.04, paragraph 3. There's a provision
Page 167
October 11, 2005
where the county manager or his designee can approve exceptions to
the land development code. They requested that so they could take --
and again, this part here is platted in Willoughby Acres. It's county
right-of-way.
They asked for deviation so they could take and put the road over
on their 30- foot access strip, provide a 20- foot wide roadway on
30-foot right-of-way on up to serve their property. We granted them
that variance or that substitution. When I say we, that's the engineering
department.
Some of the special provisions will be that, for safety, health, and
welfare, they'll be required to do a quite solid six-inch
edge-of-payment stripe all along here and along here, and then provide
a six-inch wide, they call it a six-l0 white skip to the center line here,
and then we'll have them -- require PRMPs, those little reflectors on
the edge of the road along this side here to try and make it a little bit
more safe so the traffic, as it comes in here, will be using this, and
then when they get up beyond the project entrance here, it will split
back to the way it was before.
They're proposing to dedicate their 30- foot easement that they
have here to the county so if they would ever need it for a county
roadway improvement, they would have that 30- foot access.
There was one other thing I wanted to mention. The maintenance
requirement for this 30- foot right-of-way and 20- foot roadway will be
up to the homeowners' association, same as the roadway in here,
which is a private roadway, but the right-of-way will be dedicated as
public with no responsibility for maintenance.
Another reason why we were able to reduce, or recommend a
reduction on the right-of-way width, there's an existing water line
currently in this 30- foot access easement on the west side, so we don't
have to try and accommodate a water line up here. There's a water
line, eight-inch water line that goes up here, and I think it extends
maybe 250 feet to the north.
Page 168
'"....,----~
October 11, 2005
One of the advantages that -- there will be fire hydrants put here,
here, and here, and for the people living along here, it should be a
benefit and reduction on their fire insurance.
And also if it becomes necessary, there'll be a sanitary sewer
available that they can tie into to get away from their septic tank
situation.
And I would -- it hasn't been brought up, but I recommend to the
developer when they put the sanitary sewer in, that they put a tap in
for future tie-in so they wouldn't have to dig up the pavement.
With that, I've pretty much completed my presentation, but I'm
open for any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Tom, there was some discussion by
the residents there that -- in regards to this easement. Who owns the
easement?
MR. KUCK: The easements themselves would be owned -- I'm
going to jump up here because, again, this was dedicated by
Willoughby Acres back 20 some years ago.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. KUCK: The actual30-foot easement on this side of the --
again, the quarter, quarter, quarter section line is zoned by the
individual property owners along here. The 30- foot access easement
on the east side would be owned by the property owners on the five
acres here, by the developers of that. And then you go up to the
adjacent properties, it would be the same one; the ones that abut that
easement would be the owners of that ingress/egress easement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying is, the green
line -- this is presently owned by the applicant that's looking --
MR. KUCK: The green line would be -- and I'm going to take--
because if you can see, we did a slight --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Jog.
MR. KUCK: -- bend in the road -- roadway here to get all of the
Page 169
October 11, 2005
green area onto the 30- foot access easement here. And the same thing
here, we've made a return to do the same thing. So when you look at
it to the north of the entrance to this proposed subdivision, it returns to
the normal section, the pavement section and the same way here.
And we would have them provide on the existing pavement here
what I call painted gore section for safety again, so traffic moving to
the -- to the north would realize that, along with signing, that they
have to make a movement over to the east, and the same way here, the
gore section which is painted so people corning down here would be
directed to come here. If they went straight, it wouldn't really be a
problem because this green area, or not green, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yellow.
MR. KUCK: The yellow area is paved currently.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The last --
MR. KUCK: It will remain paved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not sure if you can answer this, but
my last question is, how long has this zoning been in place, this
particular zoning for this property?
MR. KUCK: I personally don't know. I might refer to -- Susan,
do you know?
MS. MURRAY: For the record, Susan Murray, zoning director.
David Weeks advises me that since the 1980s, he believes, and I have
no reason to doubt that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Any further questions by
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have how many public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Nine.
MR. BUDD: Excuse me, Commissioner. If I could just make a
correction. I misspoke and didn't read my notes accurately when I
was saying I was not asking for any exceptions. Tom more accurately
Page 170
October 11, 2005
described the substitution of the road jogging to the right.
Our initial proposal was to take the full width of Lakeland and
improve the entire width of Lakeland from the southwest corner all the
way up to the northwest comer. When the easement question came
into play, I misspoke and I regarded it as a staff request to do less. So
that's fine if they want me to do less, but we were willing to do the
whole road. So I didn't want to mislead you in that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Budd.
Now, the nine people who are speaking here, give me an idea,
how many of you are opposed to this? All nine of you? Is there
anyone in support? Okay.
Is there any possibility that one or two people could give us a
synopsis on the reasons that you oppose it, and then the rest of you can
just stand up and say, hey, I agree with you.
MS. NELSON: I can constrain myself to a five-minute limit.
We all have separate issues.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. You really don't have a five-minute
limit. You've got a three-minute limit.
MS. NELSON: Well, then, we all have separate issues and we
each want to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Beth Nelson. She'll be followed by Wimberly
Smith.
MS. NELSON: She had to leave.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just wait till you get on the mike to
speak. We need you to get on the record, please. Please state your
name and --
MS. NELSON: Wimberly had to leave.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
MS. NELSON: My name is Beth Nelson, for the record, and I
live on Lakeland Avenue, right across from this proposed
development. I do agree, zoning is not the issue, and we don't need
Page 171
October 11, 2005
road improvements. Our road is just fine.
I'm here today to ask you to deny Legacy Estates subdivision. I
am making this request because the legal requirements set forth in the
land development code, section 10.0. -- .2 -- I'm sorry -- 10.02.04 have
not been met, okay.
I ferreted (sic) you a copy of conditions required in order for this
exception to be met. I gave a little packet, turned in a little packet
when I put in my notice to speak. And it refers to the fact that
substitutions shall be made in writing and provide clear and
convincing documentation and citations to professional engineering
studies, reports, or other generally accepted professional engineering
sources to substantiate the substitution requested. We've -- there's
none of that. These have not been met.
The written exception for the LDC is something I've also -- the
request is what -- when I asked Mr. Kuck for a copy of what was
submitted, this is the second -- or I believe second page I gave you,
third page I gave you. There are no references to any professional
engineering studies contained there.
And I also provided you a copy of this message, and I'll get to
that in a minute. But I want you to note that these plans -- and I also
put a little copy in that shows the striping, sheet three that shows the
striping that was just referred to on those charts.
The proposed access will result in a three-lane road with the
center lane being shared by opposing traffic. By design, this creates
unsafe conditions. We've already been warned that lawsuits could
result should accidents occur. How can this project be approved under
these circumstances?
If the subdivision is approved and survives legal scrutiny, Collier
County will be liable for the unsafe road conditions in our
neighborhood. One, they have not met the conditions of the land
development code, section 10.02.04; and, two, this is, by design, an
unsafe road situation.
Page 1 72
October 11, 2005
Oh, and also the 30 feet, that is not a 30-foot access they have on
our side. There is no road access. There's a utility easement. That's
it.
I'd be happy answer questions.
Oh, I did get a note on the 29th from Mr. Kuck. He said the
exception had been approved. And, again, I didn't see any engineering
studies that substantiated this request, so I don't know how this is
supported by any research.
And he also said that the meeting -- they're meeting all
requirements with the exception of the roadway width, right-of-way
width. And if you look at the map, we do see a little dotted line that
extends down, and the dotted line kind of moves a little bit towards the
west right in front of their road improvement section. And is that our
property they're on? We haven't seen any plans that show this. It
looks like we're in a private -- this is a private road. They can't take
this road to do this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Steven Reuter (sic). He'll be
follow by Suzanne, and I think it's Griffin.
MR. STRESENREUTER: Hello. Steve Stresenreuter, for the
record. I own the adjacent 30 feet across from where they propose to
make this little jog in the road, but I'm not -- that's not my point I was
appointed to speak about today.
My point that I wanted to bring up -- and this is the same map
they have there, and I just wanted to bring up the -- oh, just for the
record, I'm a certified general contractor in Collier County, for about
16 years.
And my point was the setbacks on the new preserve requirements
that the county has, I think based on the Twin Eagles problem, where
they're assigning their 25-foot setback in the preserve. Now, am I
correct with that? I don't know. That's just a question that we wanted
to bring up, that the preserve on their plans says it's a 20- foot wide
Page 173
.._>.__.""".'.~--~'''''
October 11, 2005
preserve and the setbacks shall be 25 feet from that preserve.
But according to the plan that they're submitting and we're
looking at -- mine's a little different than theirs. This is what was
provided to us from John Holewort (phonetic). Their setback starts in
about the middle or the outside edge basically of their preserve. And
that was -- that was my point that I wanted to bring up was, I'm not
sure -- I'm just basing mine on the setback requirements per each lot,
and the 10- foot buffer that should be on the outside of that preserve,
according to what they submitted. They submitted saying that there
would be a 10- foot -- 10- foot no site alteration from the preserve,
which is -- I think is standard in the subdivision to -- codes now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. STRESENREUTER: All right.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Suzanne Griffin. She'll be
followed by Chris Crapano.
MR. STRESENREUTER: Okay. Yeah, they both had to leave.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Then it will be Gary Mull. Gary will be
followed by John McLain.
MR. MULL: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Gary
Mull. I live at 206 Willowick. And my situation is the drainage. I
don't know if any of you people have been around this neighborhood
or not, but Collier County recently did some re-grading and re-sodding
to help our drainage issues.
Now, according to what I see up here, I see 14 homes draining
into a retention! detention pond, whatever that is, and then hooking
right into our existing drainage. I've seen three foot of water on that
street on several occasions, not just a hurricane, where the kids even
have to go back four or five houses to be able to get on a school bus.
So drainage is an issue, and I don't see what they've done to try to, you
know, appease us at all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Gary Mull. He'll be followed by John McLain.
Page 174
October 11, 2005
Oh, that was Gary Mull. John McLain. He'll be followed by Jack
Pointer.
MR. McLAIN: Hi. My name's John McLain. I own at 185
Willowick and also the vacant lot there on the corner of 193 right
caddy-corner to the project.
My point was that the 30-foot easement right behind my lot there
at 193 is privately owned land, and according to the land development
code, the road right-of-way needs to be 60 feet wide. And they're
providing 30 feet on the one side of their property. There's no 30 feet
on the other side of the other property.
The other point I wanted to make is also in their plans they said
they could have a building height to 35 feet. We don't have any
two-story homes in Willoughby Acres at all. It's all single-family,
single-story homes. Thirty-five feet would be a two-story home.
We'd like to keep this single-story, single-story homes. That's all I
have.
MS. FILSON: John McLain -- oh, Jack Pointer. He'll be
followed by Robert Walczak.
MR. POINTER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Jack Pointer. I live in Willoughby Acres. And Willoughby Acres has
Lakeland Avenue as one of the north/south roads going through it.
When Lakeland Avenue reaches the north end of Willoughby, it
goes into Armadillo Acres, which are the homes that we're talking
about right here. Ten years ago in October of 1995 I was present here
in this chambers when a then Ken Walton, who was a former owner of
land along in Armadillo Acres, brought to the attention of the county
that the county land -- owned the land for the northward extension of
Lakeland Avenue but that the county had to maintain it over a certain
period of time. They did not do so. And when they did not do so, the
land for the street, Lakeland Avenue, reverted back to the owners.
At that particular time County Attorney David Weigel was here
present, and he made the statement -- and I'm remembering this from
Page 175
October 11, 2005
my words -- that Mr. Walton did his homework. I have since been
shown the documents using the word homework, and I'm sure David
will remember that.
The land that was used for Lakeland Avenue at that particular
time was proved to belong to the homeowners on either side, 30 feet
coming from the west side and 30 feet coming from the east side.
That's my memory and the documents are here to show that. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Robert Walczak.
MR. WALCZAK: Hi. My name's Robert Walczak. I live two
houses from the intersection of Willowick Drive and Lakeland
Avenue. I'm a firefighter for Golden Gate Fire Department, as well as
a parent. I'm concerned about my children as well as the children in
my community.
Lakeland receives traffic from five communities, and always
Lakeland and Willowick serve as a bus stop for many buses during the
day. We don't need the additional traffic. As well, as a resident and a
parent, I disapprove of this development. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Public comment is now closed.
I'd like to hear from staff about these concerns about -- let's go down
them one at a time.
Number one, this doesn't meet the legal requirements; number
two, the setbacks are not correct; there's drainage problems; the
easements are private property; building heights of 35 feet are not
compatible; and we're concerned about child safety. So we'd like to
hear some comments concerning that.
MR. KUCK: I will try and answer -- can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. KUCK: I will try and answer the engineering questions.
Page 176
October 11, 2005
There's several of them that deal with zoning, and I'll refer those to
Susan or somebody from her staff to respond to those.
First of all, on the drainage -- and this was reviewed by my staff
and three professional engineers. For their drainage, they have a
drainage system with catch basins and pipe, and they're diverting it
into a retention area, which will be a dry retention area. When you get
a storm, it will fill up, and then it will bleed down after the storm
subsides. Again, that has been reviewed by members of staff, and
they recommended approval for what has been submitted.
The question came up that this right-of-way had reverted back.
The only way this right-of-way would have been reverted back is if
they would have gone through a formal vacation process. And to my
knowledge that has not occurred. But if it -- if it would have -- I don't
know how it occurred without these people up here retaining the rights
to use that. May be a legal question. I'm not sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll get to the county attorney
on that one a little bit later.
MR. KUCK: I'm trying to think what else they brought up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Safe roads.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Safe roads.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, child safety on the roadway.
MR. KUCK: It meets all the requirements we have. It was
brought up earlier, I think, by Dr. Nelson, I will be the first to admit
that I would prefer to have this pavement here in yellow removed, but
that's on private property and we can't do that. You know, the real
solution is to build the road as shown here. This is a substitute which
does meet the requirements. It's been reviewed by people on my staff
and myself, and from a professional viewpoint, it meets our
requirements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Susan, can you help us on some
of the other issues, please?
Page 1 77
October 11, 2005
MS. MURRAY: For the record, Susan Murray. I think there was
a comment brought up about setbacks. Usually at the subdivision
phase we don't look at setbacks. I mean, all the lots have to meet the
minimum width and area requirements of the zoning district, and all
that is spelled out in the RSF zoning district.
There are setback requirements from preserves as well as setback
requirements from the boundaries of each individual lot. That is all
evaluated at the time of building permit application.
The same with building height, it's all governed by the existing
zoning district, the RSF zoning district, which is the maximum height
of 35 feet. Whether that ends up to be two-story or one-story, the
code really doesn't say. It's just a maximum height of 35 feet. And
again, that would all be evaluated at the time of building permit
application.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. One of the things you can't
determine from this particular diagram is what the setbacks from the
buildings are because the buildings haven't been located, right?
MR. SCHMITT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you really don't know what the
setbacks are until you get to the point of identifying where the
buildings are going to be located, right?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Mr. Chairman, that would be done at
building permit, since this is straight zoning, single-family homes.
And just to clarify, the preserves are identified as tracts. Those
preserves are dedicated at the time of final plat. Those preserves in
criteria as defined in the code. The setbacks, as Susan said, are
determined at building permit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And they will have to meet code on the
setbacks?
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There has been no indication that a
request is going to be made to seek a variance from setbacks, right?
Page 178
~.,.,,","---_....;.._...,.-'
October 11, 2005
Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: We will enforce the setbacks from those
dedicated preserves.
And if I could just clarify, this has all been approved by staff.
This has been probably through five iterations of reviews. I think the
fundamental issue here, of course, is the prevention of the
right-of-way, at least what I would call safe passage into this -- if they
defined it as safe passage, but we've determined that what is available,
what we're doing is to accommodate and to at least make that land that
is through straight zoning available to be developed.
If the right-of-way were dedicated, we could complete the road
as originally designed, but that's not the case. It's been reviewed by
my staff, through environmental staff, through the engineering staff,
through the zoning staff, and we found -- we find it consistent with all
aspects of the land development code.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, tell me about meeting the legal
requirements. The allegation was made that this petition does not
meet the legal requirements.
MR. SCHMITT: I would have Ms. Jennifer Belpedio from the
county attorney's office. She did a legal review of the final plat, and
she can highlight the legal review.
MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio, assistant county attorney. I
am assigned to work with the engineering services department and
review plats. I have routinely reviewed these plats, and I look at the
criteria set forth in land development code section 10.02.04B. B
specifically refers to final subdivision plat requirements.
What was spoken about previously regarding the substitution was
part of the preliminary subdivision plat, approval which is not before
you today.
One of the criteria that I review for, along with engineering
services, is also consistency with the primary subdivision plat.
So if the roadway was approved or the right-of-way in the
Page 1 79
.__ .... _"___"'__'"_""."_""__ ,......".__. mm,."._
...~~,,-- .. ;;;_...,,~.. -,...-.,
October 11, 2005
preliminary subdivision plat, and it's the same on the final, then it is
legally sufficient for recording of the plat. There's also a number of
other criteria.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And is it -- is it the same?
MS. BELPEDIO: It is, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is the same, okay. Let me just chase
down this ownership issue. What assurance do we have that these
rights-of-way did not revert to private owners?
MS. BELPEDIO: There's a number of different rights-of-way
that I think we've all been speaking about. There was a right-of-way
shown on Tom's drawing that's in yellow. There was a question as to
ownership of that area, and because of the question, the applicant had
moved over the right-of-way as proposed on the final subdivision plat.
I've been advised that that area that's now in green is owned by
Lakeland, LLC. But as with all plats, we confirm ownership when we
receive title opinions that are submitted by the applicant. And I can
assure you that the plat will not be recorded without an assurance in
the title opinion as prepared by an attorney that that area in the green
is, in fact, only by Lakeland.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you.
And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a question for you. Was
there any action taken in regards to the vacation of this easement some
years ago as was -- that was brought forth? Can you state on that?
MS. BELPEDIO: I can't speak to a number of years ago. I can
only speak for the time that I've handled vacations, which is only a
year and a half.
I've not seen a vacation for that area. I think the issue -- because
I have reviewed some of the minutes from the meetings years ago. I
think the issue was more about participation in a road improvement
program. And there was an intention by some to quitclaim the area of
Lakeland Avenue to the county, but some persons at the last minute
Page 180
""-~-,,--.,.."._-_.^_._~".-
-..,------.,,-.".--
October 11, 2005
decided not to. So there was some negotiations with those people, but
I do not believe we had received the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: David, do you have anything to
add to this?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'm looking at the -- a copy of these
minutes of discussion with the board about 10 years ago, and the
board ultimately took an action by motion and vote to quitclaim
whatever interest they had in a particular portion of land pursuant to --
pursuant to the fact that they had not utilized -- the county had not
utilized it ostensibly for roadway.
And the board did make a motion. And I was getting to the point
__ I think they voted -- did vote to quitclaim back their interest,
whatever it may be.
Now, I can't tell looking at this as quickly as I am right now
whether, in fact, it coincides with the private roadway interests that are
being offered as part of the plat that's being suggested here.
And Jennifer, you may have talked about getting a title opinion
or insisting on a title opinion before we would allow the plat to be
recorded, but perhaps Mr. Budd may have some additional language
about underlying ownership there.
I can't really review these things coming up like this seriatim.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Don't worry about that stuff right now.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know how we proceed if we can't
say with certainty that we own the property, or that they own the
property. And we can't respond to documents that are just being
dropped on our desks as we're going through this debate, so --
MR. WEIGEL: I suggest a continuance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I would, too. So we need to get
these answers to these questions. And the ownership of the land
Page 181
.-."-_.~-~-_."--'^ ...-.
-_._;..,.__."--"..~"
October 11, 2005
seems to be fairly critical here.
Commissioner Fiala was next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to
ask also, when we -- when we consider this at a later time -- and I
understand it's going to be continued -- you don't even have to answer
it now. I was just wondering if we could stipulate somewhere in here
that these would be single-family homes.
MR. BUDD: Yes. There's no question it will be single-family
homes. And as far as the title to the land, it's my understanding that if
there is any question, it would be -- it would be for the land -- you
can't see my dark pen here. Okay. That's the northwest corner of the
property. That would be for the land to the north of us.
To my understanding there's no question that this end of
Lakeland Boulevard -- oops, my pen's rolling -- to the southwest
corner, that there's any question -- from that point south, there's no
question, there's absolutely no question that we own our property, and
we directly, without interruption, abut the terminus of Lakeland
Boulevard, where we've dedicated a 30- foot access easement, a further
80 foot of drainage and access for a total of 110 feet on that southwest
corner.
So while there may be -- and I have no idea -- question of
ownership from the left, northwest corner north, frankly, I don't care
about that.
MR. SCHMITT: Could I clarify, Mr. Chairman? Because the
issue here, they're arguing over land. What we mandated is to ensure
that the road remained open, because that was the requirement to
allow for people to access these properties up in this area. So we have
to allow for access. That was our mandate.
There was no argument here of ownership for this property. We
made himjink over onto his property. There would be no
encroachment on the neighboring right-of-way, and they'll jink back
again to allow for these residents here.
Page 182
--~-
.'^.._~.""..--.--'--"-"~'
October 11, 2005
And as you can see, certainly there's no incompatibility in the
properties that's being asked to be developed. So I would just offer
the argument in regards to ownership is somewhat a moot point
because it is irrelevant. He owns his land. We validated that. And it's
been through the reviews.
The only criteria we mandated, again, is to make sure that the --
there was an adequate roadway to allow for these neighbors to access
their home. The argument for ownership up here may be in dispute,
but that's kind of irrelevant with this case, unless you want us to come
back and present that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I asked the county attorney if they
could vouch for the fact that there was no dispute about ownership,
and I was told they cannot yet; is that true?
MS. BELPEDIO: I have no reason to believe that Lakeland, or
Lakeland, LLC, does not own the property. But as required by the
LDC, we wait for title opinions. But this matter is not any different
than any others, and this board in the past has reviewed and approved
plats without having the title work. It's just something that comes as a
matter of course. We verify the information, and if we don't have the
appropriate supporting documentation, then the plat will not get
recorded.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This person is building a road on
his property. He's got property rights here; am I right?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. If he's got property rights
here and he's donating this land -- and you're telling me that you don't
have any verification that he owns this land? I'm kind of stymied
here.
MR. WEIGEL: I think she has -- what she had said is that there's
no indication that he doesn't own that land. And the question that I
Page 183
'...·_r··. .'~-'"
October 11, 2005
was attempting to respond to was when we're talking about the county
having quitclaimed some land 10 years ago, it's impossible for me to
tell on the fly whether we're talking about the property that's the
subject of this small plat or if it's some other property within the
subdivision, and that's the only issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But he -- he is providing an
access to his property, and he's not involved in anybody else's
property; is that correct?
MS. BELPEDIO: True.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is he overstepping the bounds on
somebody else's property?
MS. BELPEDIO: No.
MR. WEIGEL: No. Well, it appears that he's not. It's just that
in response to the other speakers here who are claiming that there is a
violation of a private property interest, I cannot tell with a deed being
brought up to me just now, that this deed coincides with that property
there or not. That's the only thing I'm attempting to tell you at this
point in time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I can't believe that this wasn't --
wouldn't have been researched by your staff prior to we having this
meeting to make sure -- the clarification of where we are with regards
to this gentleman and his property and the easement that he needs to
access his property. I'm concerned here.
MR. WEIGEL: I see.
MS. BELPEDIO: Mr. Chairman, may I respond to that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
MS. BELPEDIO: I have researched the area, and I have
reviewed the quitclaim deeds and other related documents that were
provided to me by the objecting neighboring property owners.
I did come to the preliminary conclusion that it was not owned by
the applicant/developer, but now that the right-of-way is moved onto
property that the applicant is asserting is his, I believe it's legally
Page 184
____,---,.-u,'
October 11, 2005
sufficient.
Then we obtain the legal opinion. It -- I think in 100 percent of
the times that I've seen these subdivision plats, they confirm that the
applicant owns the property, and gets recorded.
It's a matter of the way the process works. We're trying to make
sure that we get the title opinion at the latest point possible so we
cover the longest time period and we don't have a change in property
and then we need a whole 'nother title opinion. That's, I believe, why
the process was set up that way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But this gentleman has been
working on this for about a year, two years now. I'm surprised that we
haven't addressed this particular issue to make sure that there was
some very clear clarification in which -- in the manner in which we
had to proceed here today.
MR. BUDD: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think -- I think -- Jennifer, I think
what you just said was that you did research it, and initially you
confirmed that this road was not on the petitioner's property?
MS. BELPEDIO: The yellow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, the yellow.
MS. BELPEDIO: The yellow portion was not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so -- but when they relocated it, you
now are convinced that it is on the petitioner's property, and he's okay.
MS. BELPED I 0: After seeing the records that I've seen, I
believe that the title opinion will likely come back with Lakeland
owning the property.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay. I understand now. That's
clearer to me. Commissioner Henning has something.
Mr. Budd, do you have something?
MR. BUDD: I just wanted to confirm that any properties in
question are not relevant to our access. We clearly do not own the
west 30 feet of Lakeland Avenue.
Page 185
-. _.~"......~-,-,,,~.--,,,,.,,...._-
October 11, 2005
It would have been nice if there was an easement and we'd
improve the entire road. Once we became aware that there was any
question whatsoever of ownership and access on the west half, we
stayed off of it. We do not know and, frankly, do not care about
ownership and access north of our property.
We do own our property. The forthcoming title insurance upon
the plat will confirm that, and we have direct abutting access to
Lakeland Avenue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you want to say anything else,
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I've said it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, okay. The public hearing has
already been closed.
The motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying.
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 approved unanimously.
MR. WEIGEL: And I would note for the record
that the plat will be placed of record with the reporter, the bulky
Page 186
"."-,._.,,,...~----~..~-- - ->
October 11, 2005
document.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. BELPEDIO: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that takes us to item 8E, and it is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can I -- can I stop you for just a
moment? We still have members of the audience who are waiting
here for things since this morning. Can we go to 9L? That's a fairly
fast one.
Item #9L
REQUEST TO RECONSIDER SONOMA OAKS PUD, PUDZ-2005-
AR-7469 - APPROVED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make it real quick.
Commissioner, it's brought to my attention that the petitioner at our
last meeting didn't have time to present some evidence, so, therefore, I
make a motion to reconsider --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Sonoma, whatever it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion to reconsider by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
And I would say to you that we have a --
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker, Bruce Anderson.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's not here.
MS. FILSON: Yes, he is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, okay. He might -- that's right. I'm
not going to make the same mistake as before, because really this is
my -- a mistake I made. I cut you short. I didn't let you make a full
presentation last time. I called the question.
Page 187
..,~~,~~",---^ -.-
October 11, 2005
So go ahead and talk with us, Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Appreciate the motion and the response to
our request for reconsideration.
At the hearing two weeks ago, Commissioner Halas made clear
what his concerns were, but the hearing ended so abruptly that we
didn't get to find out, you know, what concerns or questions
Commissioner Henning might have. And I want to be prepared to
address those in two weeks if have you any. That's all. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any guidance we need to give
Mr. Anderson at this point in time before he comes back?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, there is.
MR. MUDD: Go ahead, David.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the fact, this is an advertised item, and so
the board will make a motion to reconsider today, and if adopted, then
the matter will come back and Jim appropriately indicated the time
frame on your part B of our reconsideration ordinance. But by virtue
of the fact there was an absolute vote and it wasn't continued from the
prior meeting, it will need to be required -- I mean it will be required
that it be advertised. And so I suggest that it be two meetings from
today.
MR. ANDERSON: It has been advertised. I took care of it. It
was in yesterday's Naples Daily News.
MR. WEIGEL: That's what I need to know. So you'll meet your
10-day advertisement for the next board meeting.
MR. ANDERSON: Fifteen-day.
MR. WEIGEL: Fifteen-day? Even better, great.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's been advertised for -- to
certain day to hear it?
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. Once I saw that memo, yeah. See,
we wound up in a time --
Page 188
~-"",.,"----
.,.-.,.,,-------"""'.-
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Want to sit here?
MR. ANDERSON: There's a time crunch under the ordinance
because you all are not meeting at your regular times in November.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You should have --
MR. ANDERSON: And the sign has been changed as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You should have advertised the
approval, too. It would have saved us a lot of trouble.
You know, I think we just found a way to cut short a lot of these
things that we have to deal with here.
MR. ANDERSON: Just trying to practice preventative law.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's good. I wish we could practice
preventative lawyers.
Okay. We have a motion to continue by Commissioner Henning,
a second by Commissioner Fiala (sic).
MR. WEIGEL: A motion to reconsider.
MR. MUDD: Reconsider.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Reconsider by Commissioner Henning, a
second by Commissioner Fiala -- Commissioner Coletta, I'm sorry.
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. It will be
reconsidered.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just for clarification, it's for the
25th of October?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
Page 189
___"'N~___'·O'~~"·-···'-"··''--·"·'·~-
_ _ ___""'_'~_~'''''''M''''''__'·''~''.V'_''·'~·_''__"'''_·'~
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we answer the questions that --
you wanted to know Commissioner Henning's concerns so that you
can respond to them at that meeting? Have you -- have you received
those or do you need them on the record today?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, shall we go to 8E, or do you want
to keep seeing if there's anybody else in the audience and keep going
down those agenda items?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How close are we getting to a break
time?
MR. MUDD: Sir, you already had a break at three o'clock.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, listen, after three o'clock, we --
MR. MUDD: Sir, you can have as many breaks as you want.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: After three o'clock, we start breaking
every 30 minutes from here on out.
MS. FILSON: I have three speakers, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three speakers for what, this particular
item?
MS. FILSON: No. I have a speaker on 9K, 10D, and 11.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Where do you want to go, Mr.
Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Say it one more time.
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker for 9K, one for 10D, and one
for 11.
MR. MUDD: And one for 11. Let's go to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 9K. Whoops.
MR. MUDD: That's my appraisal, and I think it will take
probably a lot longer than you want to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Let's--
MR. MUDD: What was that 10 item?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's continue that till December.
Page 190
^'.. .__._-~-,--......~-
'" .......-,_.~ -
"-"-'-''''-~''-'
October 11, 2005
MS. FILSON: 10D.
Item #10D
DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF THE COUNTY'S NOISE
ORDINANCE (CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER
54~ ARTICLE IV) AS AMENDED - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Let's go to 10D, sir. 10D, you have a speaker for
that particular item. 1 OD. This item was continued from the
September 25, 2005, BCC meeting. It's a discussion and review of the
county noise ordinance. It's code of laws and ordinances, Chapter 54,
Article IV, as amended, and Ms. Michelle Arnold, your code
development director, will present.
She always scares me when she gets into that cabinet looking for
something.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Any goodies in there?
MS. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. Michelle Arnold, for the
record. I'm here to just report back to the board actually, because
there was an item back in April of2005, there was a public petition
regarding concerns with boom boxes and other noise issues within the
community .
And at that particular time, you all directed us to go back and
look at the ordinances and regulations to determine whether or not
there is anything else that we need to do to enhance enforcing that
code.
We did work with the sheriffs office and reviewed the existing
ordinances, we also reviewed the existing state statutes, and found that
there is actually an existing statute in place that regulates those types
of noise levels. And, in fact, the statutes indicates that it's unlawful for
any person to operate or occupy a motor vehicle on the street or a
highway to operate or amplify the sound producing from a radio, tape
Page 191
"........-----.'
~~._""_..___.w·,~" ,,",,.
October 11,2005
player, or any other mechanical sound-making device or instrument
from within a motor vehicle so that the sound is plainly audible from a
distance of 25 feet.
So the sheriff's office currently has the ability to enforce when
there's audible sound from 25 feet, and that's without the use of a noise
meter.
In addition to that regulation, we have our noise ordinance that
we primarily enforce but, however, the sheriff's office has the ability
to enforce it as well, and that allows us to, from known locations, with
a known affected party, take noise readings from adjacent property
and determine whether or not any of the decibel levels or octave band
levels that are identified in your noise ordinance are being violated.
And that's working pretty effectively, as well as the enforcement of
the state statute.
I think what -- an issue we have is education. We need to
provide a little bit more education for the public to let them be aware
of what these ordinances and regulations do say.
In an effort to educate the public a little bit more, we're working
with the sheriffs office. They have actually put together a short piece
with us, and I have it here to show you. It's about three minutes. If I
can do that. Is that okay?
(Videotape was played as follows:)
"MR. HUFF: -- want you to please be considerate of other
people in vehicles and in parking lots around you who may not share
your taste for music, otherwise, you may find yourself being reminded
of Florida boom box law in a different fashion."
MS. ARNOLD: Let me start over.
MR. FORDHAM: "Hi. I'm Jack Fordham, an investigator with
Collier County Code Enforcement. You know, noise is an insidious
thing. It's something that over a period of time can disrupt our lives, it
can make us angry, it can make us feel bad. It's something that can
have effects that are very, very negative on our mental health, and
Page 192
,........,---"~.."~-,..._~,-
.....-,...,,,-""".........""'..---.-.-. -
<,.",.,'",.."""""~"."..,..,,....-"
0_.. _ .,.,_..",.",,_,~~~__"-~
October 11, 2005
obviously on the way that we feel if it's affecting our sleep or our rest
or whatever.
"Y ou need to know that this instrument I hold in my hand has the
ability to measure noise, either the decibel level or the octave. The
octaves being the frequency, that loud booming that comes from base
or either a shrill high frequency.
"And code enforcement is always available to help you if the
noise is of a repetitive or recurring cycle. Normally we need more
time to plan and get to a location, and that's why normally we're the
people to call when it is of a repetitive nature.
"If you've got noise, however, being created by a moving -- like a
car, a moving object, or a party that may be rather transient, you need
to remember always to call the sheriffs department. They have more
officers in the field and can respond more timely. They also, like code
enforcement, have noise specialists, that with instruments, properly
certified to measure legal levels, they have the operators for these
instruments that have been trained and certified by Rutgers University.
We can come, we can help, we can solve the problem.
"So remember, if you have noise of a recurring or repetitive
nature, code enforcement. If you have noise from automobiles or
parties that may be transient or may be ending in a short period of
time, call the sheriffs department. But either way, we want to help
you with the problem."
MR. HUFF: "Florida Statute 316.3045, better known as Florida
boom box law, says it is unlawful for anyone to operate or occupy a
vehicle where the sound-making devices have been amplified so that
the sound can be heard more than 25 feet from the car.
"To better illustrate exactly what this law means, let's set up a
little demonstration. This vehicle has the radio turned on at a normal
level. And as you can see, you can't hear from 25 feet away.
"As a matter of fact, when you put the window down, you still
can't hear the sound at a
Page 193
-.----.-"
.".,.._"~~.~_..,-~...._-
".__.,.__.....,",,-;~"-
October 11, 2005
distance of 25 feet.
"And as you can see, this is a clear violation of the law because
you can hear that sound more than 25 feet from the vehicle.
"And so we'd like to remind you to please be considerate of other
people in vehicles and in parking lots around you who may not share
your taste for music, otherwise, you may find yourself being reminded
of Florida boom box law in a different fashion."
MR. FORDHAM: "So remember, whether your noise is the type
that requires a code enforcement investigator or a sheriffs deputy,
always remember to be a good neighbor and follow the code."
(The video tape concluded.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a question.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifwe had our own county boom box
law, could we enforce it?
MS. ARNOLD: Can we, meaning the code enforcement
department?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: (Nods head.)
MS. ARNOLD: It's -- we could, but it's somewhat difficult
because we don't typically -- we don't -- we don't at all stop vehicles,
and so that's something that we rely on the sheriffs office to enforce.
So if somebody's on the roadway, that's an enforcement -- that's under
the enforcement priority of the sheriffs office.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: This clip, as with others that we've been trying
to do, will be running on Channel 11 periodically, and hopefully it
will help to educate the public.
The only other thing that we believe that would help with the
enforcement of the noise regulations is the use of -- or the purchase of
additional meters. Right now we have two meters, and we don't
always have them readily available because there's a requirement for
calibration that leaves them out of our office for some periods of time.
Page 194
,._."~..__'"_.H·__'Ù_""_
",._"""',,_," ~ .",.u. 'Ø .~ ,..,_..,-,,~
October 11, 2005
And I think if we were to have additional meters, we could have
them in the vehicles with us rather than, what we're having to do now
is, when we get a noise violation or a noise complaint, go back to the
office, and then pick those things up.
So with the -- your approval for additional funding for the
purchase of two additional meters, I think it would help with this
particular effort.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was first, Commissioner
Halas or Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. It was me first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Do the sheriffs deputies have
these same meters in their vehicles?
MS. ARNOLD: No, they don't. They don't have the same types
of noise meters that we do. They have meters, but not the same type.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So when you buy these, then would
they be for the sheriffs office to use or--
MS. ARNOLD: They'd be for my staff to use.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then your staff really can't use
them to, you know, like with boom boxes and everything, which is
what they're talking about, right?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, they're not needed for boom boxes. They
have that boom box law that indicates if it's audible from 25 feet or
closer, then they would have to -- or further, I mean, they would be
able to enforce it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two more questions.
Then does the sheriffs deputy have the equipment in their
vehicle to measure this and stop them? I mean, you don't really see
that happening much, so I was just wondering. If they only have a
couple of these pieces of equipment or if they're not calibrated
correctly, or do they all have them and they -- that's just not high
priority?
Page 195
.OW.>_·..____'^"'
October 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. The police don't need meters.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you can hear them with your ears from
greater than 25 feet away, you can stop them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So they don't -- they're not hampered by
the same problem we are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just a little bit of a
clarification. In the second paragraph under considerations, they're
talking about 25 feet or more from a moving vehicle or louder than
necessary for the convenient hearing by persons inside a vehicle,
adjoining churches, schools, or hospitals, and maybe homes, too, right,
because I know my windows rattle as some of them go by. It didn't
mention homes.
And further up in that same paragraph, it talks about, as well as
amplified music, stereo noises emanating from motor vehicles by law
enforcement personnel. And it sounds like it's the noise coming from
theirs. And I know if you reread it --
MS. ARNOLD: They're not allowed to listen to music. No, I'm
just kidding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you read it a few times, I know
what you meant. But if it ever goes into word print, you might want to
reword it so it flows a little bit better. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How is the working relationship
with you and the sheriffs department in regards to these boom box
problems that we have in Collier County?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, we don't -- we don't typically get those
complaints. But as I said, as a part of this particular effort, we had a
very good working relationship. We met and reviewed all of the
paperwork that Ms. Noe provided to the board. And it was very
thorough, by the way. And we've agreed that we would work together
Page 196
'~-""'"'~- ~ ~. .~."'.~,---~'~---
October 11, 2005
to respond to some of these complaints, whether it's a stationary
complaint or one that's on the roadway, so it's a pretty good working
relationship that we have.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now to get back to your particular
insurance in regards to soundable meters that you need that's required
for code enforcement, we're looking at noises that are repetitious --
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- basically coming from an
industrial complex, or possibly do you get involved with music
coming out of bars at night?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or homes.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or homes.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So this is what we really
need to look at in regards to making sure that code enforcement
people here in Collier County have the ability to address these issues
for concerned citizens and to have a better -- a higher response time --
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- is what you're basically telling
us?
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I make a motion for
approval of the sound level meters on this agenda item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a public speaker.
MS. FILSON: I think -- we have a public speaker. I think she's
gone. Mary Jane Gay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second his motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas, seconded by Commissioner Coletta, to -- but the
item before us is really, I guess, the approval of the staffs
recommendation that we make no changes to our existing noise
Page 197
h .. ,__,"__,,~_"_'''___'_'__'__''H_~'.~··_
October 11, 2005
ordinance; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct, and that's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But some guidance that if -- you know,
if the county manager wants to get some more noise meters, present
them. I don't know what the total cost is, but if it exceeds his
authority, come back to us and talk to us about it, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's part of my motion also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just want to clarify that
if it exceeds their authority, I want to go through competitive bid, but
you covered all that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it says here in the
recommendation, authorize the purchase of additional noise meters.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we can't authorize the purchase of
noise meters without knowing how much they're going to cost.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, they're going to put them on
a competitive bid and they'll come back and tell us.
MS. ARNOLD: Right. We actually got estimates, and it's within
that 20,000 that's in your executive summary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So you can do it within that
amount of money?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay, all right. Good. That's your
motion.
Commissioner Henning, I think that covers your -- Commissioner
Henning's concerns.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And no further questions?
(No response.)
Page 198
"---~--
-"'......._",,,,,...,-..-
---_...._.,._--...""._.,..~~,.....
October 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2005-54: REPEAL AND REPLACE ORDINANCE
90-30, AS AMENDED, THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL ORDINANCE AND - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8E.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 8E?
MR. MUDD: 8E.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's time for a break.
MR. MUDD: If you want one, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll take a 10-minute break, because
once we get into this, it could go on for hours.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session. Where do
we go from here?
MR. MUDD: Next item is 8E. This item was continued from
Page 199
-'--'-" ,-",,-,,----
O__~_H",.······,~·····..O'H..·"^'·.,_,·,··_··C,..·
October 11, 2005
the September 27,2005, BCC meeting. It's to obtain the Board of
County Commissioners' approval to repeal ordinance 90-30 as
amended, the solid waste collection and disposal ordinance and
replace it with ordinance number 05-, and depending on if you
approve it today, we'll put a number at the last part.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wasn't this--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- read last time? I think we read this
thing last time. We got almost through it, right?
Motion to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- approve by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning has his
light on first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does this include the area of
Everglades City?
MR. YONKOWSKY: No, sir, it does not. And what we would
like to do -- we can either ask you to amend the description to include
Everglades City in compliance with the action that you took this
morning, or we could bring it back to you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to take care of it now.
MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wanted to know, what are
you going to do about recycling in apartment complexes where the
residents want to recycle, and there is no provisions to do that, or they
just don't -- plain old don't want to?
MR. YONKOWSKY: Commissioner Fiala, they actually can
recycle right now in the multifamily and the condos, they can recycle,
Page 200
-,------".-.-
---~-,..".,-"-_.,,~-"-~,-""""~--."'---_.,,-~
October 11, 2005
and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they don't. My daughter's living
in one where they won't, and so she brings all of her trash over to my
house. And so I'm just -- and she said that they've asked but the
company said that -- they've removed those recycled bins because
people weren't throwing the recyclables in there. They were throwing
it in the regular garbage can, so they removed them.
And I was wondering -- I'm sure if she has one, others do too.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator.
Ma'am, it's a challenge. First off, most of our multifamily
apartments or installations participate in our recycling program to
some degree. And the way it's done is -- because they're done with a
bulk dumpster, you know, we put a large dumpster usually in the
vicinity or as close as we can make to it. We'll have recycling bins
that are picked up on a frequent basis for people to participate. As
they go to the bulk container to put their garbage in, they can also
place their recyclables.
It entails carrying two bags. And so that's probably the
challenge, you know, to do that, as opposed to maybe someone in a
single- family home who necessary will go out and put stuff in a bin
today and another bin tomorrow. And we've worked with folks who --
on this, on this matter.
With regard to compliance, it's strictly voluntary at this stage of
the game. Now, we'd love to have some great ideas and pursue it if--
to see if we could do better.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, a little bird told me that
you've been going around talking to each of these apartment
complexes and briefing them on mandatory recycling. And I was very
excited to hear that.
And so I wanted to put that on the record that you, indeed, are
going to each one of --
Page 201
",M<_~__"'M~O"_'__._
October 11, 2005
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- these places all around the county.
And see, so you didn't tell me, a little bird had to tell me.
MR. DeLONY: Ma'am, you know, we've been aggressive for the
last two years in both enforcement and education to create this
conservation culture that we've spoken to in our integrated solid waste
management program for the last three years.
We've made some great strides in that. I would say we have
excellent voluntary compliance. We're always looking for more.
We've still got some outliers, and some of it is a matter of older
properties which have no space for a recycling bin and a garbage
container. I mean, it's a real constraint.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just because Commissioner Coyle's
getting really nervous --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but you are going to call on each
one of these places --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am, we are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to strongly encourage them to
recycle, right?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. And I would ask that anyone that's
listening to this that would like to pursue that with us, that's listening
to this today, would call us at 403-2380 and arrange for us to come
and speak to you at your convenience about this matter. We'll be --
we'll give you as many good ideas as possible on how you can achieve
what we're all trying to accomplish here, and that's to conserve our
airspace in the landfill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we should write about it in
some of our newsletters. I know Commissioner Halas writes in a
newsletter, I think Commissioner Coletta does, Commissioner
Henning. We'll all write in newsletters and see if we can't encourage
those in apartment complexes.
Page 202
,...,...__..~.",- ._-,-,....__...,.~_.~..._--
October 11, 2005
And the second thing is, the yard waste collection. It has been
mentioned that people should put that stuff out in bags, paper bags. It
was in the newspaper. But we all know that grass has a lot more water
in it than anything else. And by the time the poor guys come to pick it
up, the bottom falls out and there's stuff all over.
So I'm just wondering if there isn't a way for you to begin to
work on some kind of a receptacle or even encourage people to use
something other than a paper bag.
MR. DeLONY: Ma'am, when we went back in February and
rewrote the collections contract, what you approved, we spoke to this
matter, that the plastic bags were going to cause us problems in taking
that horticultural waste or yard waste and then using it to a beneficial
use because of the contamination of the plastics.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. DeLONY: And at that time we talked about the use of
plastic bags or personal cans, the smaller, 50-gallon type cans as being
the way home with regard to grass clippings as we spoke to, and that's
the thrust line we're on.
The three mailings that we've had that deal with this change in
our collection have addressed those concerns, and we continue to have
that on our website, as well as part of our overall outreach effort, the
kinds of places, newsletters and so on that you're speaking to. And I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you on the record.
That's where we're at with it, ma'am. And there really is not a
substitute right now, because if we use plastic bags as we did in the
past, it will cause us a challenge we're diverting now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe we'll have a dumpster with a
red lid on it, as one of my constituents suggested, but anyway --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I just wanted to plant those. I
don't want to belabor it any longer.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. And thank you for the opportunity
Page 203
_,..",_,_,,_~_,""_·_"M·"
,...""~....._--^..,,,_.-
October 11, 2005
to address those.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Yeah,
Commissioner Henning brought up a point, but I'm a little confused,
because we already approved 16C2, which was an interlocal
agreement with Collier County and City of Everglades. Didn't that
address everything we're looking to do, or is there any shortcomings?
And by all means, I want to add it in on this agenda item.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. Because of the sequence of events
here, we're asking today that, as you consider in the approval of this
ordinance, that we -- that we allow for the City of Everglades City to
be the actual metes and bounds of that boundary, be included as part
of this ordinance now that we have this interlocal agreement in place
between the two -- county and the city, which will allow us to use it
just in time in December so we can pick up those properties on the tax
rolls, not this sequence, but the next sequence to follow, on the next
time around, sir. And I'd ask that the board consider doing that today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Has there been
a motion made already?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. There's been a motion and second
already.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we just want to include in
the motion to cover the Everglades City municipality.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was in my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was in the motion, and it was in the
second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But there's one other thing. Mr.
DeLony, correct me if I'm wrong.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What Commissioner Fiala's
Page 204
-..--..----.--..----.-
'--'-~'''''--'''~'--
October 11, 2005
talking about, where her daughter lives, it's a commercial customer.
MR. DeLONY: That's right, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we passed a commercial
ordinance of mandatory recycling.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if -- that's an ordinance that
we ask you to follow.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if you need time to deviate
from that ordinance, please let us know.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. And we are working with the public on
that -- on the compliance issues associated with the ordinance, and we
are following that ordinance very carefully in terms of enforcement
and outreach associated with it, sir.
If I may, you might recall that you set in both carrots and sticks
in that ordinance to bring compliance into -- bring folks into
compliance both with enforcement and education. And sir, we're
strictly following that ordinance, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was October 1, the
implementation.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a public speaker.
MR. DeLONY: Let me just check with the attorney's office. Do
we need to put anything else on the record, Robert, with regard to
making sure we can get these folks on the tax rolls? Please indulge me
for a moment.
MR. ZACHARY: Robert Zachary, county attorney's office. No,
we're all right with that.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: But I'll add, just so Guy Carlton doesn't have a
question. It's not the tax rolls. We're talking about an assessment roll.
MR. DeLONY: Excuse me. Assessment rolls, apologize.
Page 205
."".~......,-;-"'"
October 11, 2005
MR. WEIGEL: Special assessment.
MR. DeLONY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MS. FILSON: WE have one speaker, Mr. Chairman. Bob
Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank
you very much, Commissioner Coyle, for continuously postponing
this item so that I could be here today. As you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry I did so, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I thought you might say that, but I'll take it
in good jest.
The primary reason I'm here today, all other things aside, in
reviewing this ordinance, I noticed that there was a definition for --
and they weren't called recyclables. It was some other term, you
know. So there was a definition in the body of this ordinance
identifying those items that we identify as recyclables.
Then when it goes into the commercial section of advocating
recycling, it applies that set of terms to the commercial section, and all
I'm here looking for or advocating for is that in regards to commercial,
if commercial establishments want to at any time recycle something
other than is on that list, they have the right by law to do so, in my
understanding. And I'm no lawyer, you know, but it's my
understanding in the commercial arena, recyclables, when they are
treated as such become a commodity, and you can't legislate what
businesses do with their commodities. There's some protection for
some reason.
So what's identified as recyclables are like, paper, cardboard,
plastic, and whatever. Food waste from restaurants could be a
potential business in the future. It happens in other states where
companies go around and collect food waste from restaurants and then
bring them to compost facilities.
And that's primarily what I envision happening in the future,
Page 206
-~ ,..,-". ....-. ".-
;..._w... ._~_""_"""""""""^'_"-"
October 11, 2005
hope will happen in the future and wouldn't want this ordinance to
suggest that that possibility did not exist, because it would be in
violation of the ordinance, because food waste you have identified as
garbage. And sometimes it's garbage and sometimes it pays for
business to recycle it.
So that's pretty much it. The -- in regards to some of the
comments Ms. Fiala has been making, as Mr. DeLony put out--
mentioned, the plastic bags, when they're picked up and the
horticultural material's brought to a composting facility, it's a huge
mess.
You've probably been out to the facility near Immokalee. If you
go there again, there's plastic all over the place. So that's why people
should just get garbage cans and throw all their grass clippings and
stuff in.
Other than that, I think this ordinance is a step in the right
direction. It represents good work on the part of the county staff and
others that were involved, and hopefully we'll progress to a zero
waste, or darn close, future in regards to management of discard --
discarded sources so they're not a problem.
Thanks for the opportunity.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you, Bob.
Okay. We have a motion to approve and a 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 passes unanimously.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioners.
Page 207
,---
-^---;.--,,-,--~._._..._.>
October 11, 2005
Item #8F
ORDINANCE 2005-55: REPEAL AND REPLACE THE
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD AND THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8F, and that is
17D. And this item was continued from the September 13,2005, BCC
meeting, and further continued from the September 27,2005, BCC
meeting.
It's to obtain the Board of County Commissioners' approval to
repeal and replace the ordinance establishing the Code Enforcement
Board and the Nuisance Abatement Board, and that item was asked to
come to the regular agenda by Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have some concerns.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To be honest with you, I had
many of them, but most of them were answered and I'm very satisfied
with it. But it's the amount of the fine. I just -- I question whether it's
really going to have any meaning as far as increasing it that much. It
seems like a heck of an increase from some cases, what was it, four- to
10- fold increases.
Tell me this, Michelle, what do you foresee? What is this exactly
supposed to do by having these fines set right up there in the
stratosphere?
MS. ARNOLD: Right now -- well, the state statute allows us to
increase those fines that are identified in the ordinance. We currently
Page 208
--"'--,.,.~_.__..._-~.-
......,~~..._.__._"
-----"' -
October 11, 2005
have those fines in place for the special master. That was -- those fine
amounts were adopted when we adopted the special master's
ordinance.
We're doing this as a part of an update to the Code Enforcement
Board ordinance. I don't think that we're going to be utilizing those
fine levels all the time. It's going to be looked at for severe cases,
irreparable, irreversible cases where, you know, they've done it and
there's no correction, or in some instances where you may have a
business that is accepting the fines that we normally issue like a
hundred-dollar- fine citation as a course of doing business rather than
correcting the violation. And this -- this would allow the board to
impose stiffer fines so that they correct the problem rather than just
accepting the fines.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I'll be honest with
you, your explanation, I heard it, but I still don't agree with it. But if
one of my other commissioners wants to move this forward --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, do you have
anything else to say?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would just say that I think
Michelle, you've covered this well. You're talking about the people
that are habitually causing the problem, and what we do -- what we
did is raise the ceiling. Now, people that have -- are one-time
violators, obviously they're not going to be assessed this type of fine.
MS. ARNOLD: No, and these are--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're probably going to be
assessed no more than a warning. And then if they do it a second
time, whatever, they're going to be assessed the lower limit fine, but --
if it continues; is that correct?
MS. ARNOLD: That's absolutely correct. This is not an
automatic thing by any means, and most people won't get fined. This
Page 209
_"____.........__,~~.,.o~.._·,·,,_·· __~,__
.._"__'_'_"_'.'H'_~~_"'~
0"-___-·
October 11, 2005
is -- this is something that is authorizing the Code Enforcement Board,
not staff, to impose.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. BELPEDIO: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am.
MS. BELPEDIO: May I state something on the record?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
MS. BELPEDIO: Michelle is accurate when she says that there
is authority in the statutes in 162 to support these fines. I want you to
be aware that in order for the increase in fines to go through, you need
a vote of at least a majority plus one, that's what's specifically stated in
the statute.
So I would suggest that you may want to bifurcate your motions
and first consider the increase in the fines and then, perhaps, next the
overall ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That means we need to separate it into
two motions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Unless we're going to vote for --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In legal speak, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would just as soon let this motion
go as it is and see how it flies. And then if it doesn't, why, somebody
else can make a motion and break it down that way.
MS. BELPEDIO: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Michelle, you know, we
don't want to generate money; we want to solve the problem.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if this is a money generator
or a source of income, then we -- in my opinion, it needs to come back
and be amended.
Page 210
^-~._-
October 11, 2005
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. That is not the intent at all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I know in one case in
Golden Gate, hundred-dollar fines to an apartment complex with litter
problems, garbage problems, it doesn't mean anything to them. But
hopefully if that's the way we're going to solve this problem and not
force them to put more dumpsters out there, hopefully this will solve
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
Right?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm all done.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta dissents.
It passes 4-1. And that addresses both issues. We didn't bifurcate
them.
MS. BELPEDIO: I think you mean separate?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right.
MS. BELPEDIO: I didn't understand you. Thank you.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2005-355: APPOINTING PATRICIA A. HUFF,
Page 211
-"~"----
~,,,,,,,,",,._-,_.'~'"'
October 11, 2005
AND RE-APPOINTING JOHN W. THOMPSON W/ WAIVE OF
TERM LIMIT AND RE-APPOINTING THOMAS W. FRANCHINO
TO THE HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION
BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9A. It's
appointment of members to the Historical Archaeologic Preservation
Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have committee
recommendations for John W. Thompson, Thomas W. Franchino, and
Patricia A. Huff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: If I might--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. You need to have a waiver of the
MS. FILSON: Yes. I need a waiver for Mr. John Thompson.
And also to let you know that staff went back for the last two years for
the reappointments for their attendance, and Jack Thompson had three
excused absences, and Tom Franchino had two excused absences in
2004. In 2005, they both had perfect attendance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can't ask for anything better than that.
We have a motion to approve.
MS. FILSON: Who was the second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I seconded.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 212
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9B
COMMISSIONER FIALA TO SERVE ON THE COUNTY
CANVASSING BOARD FOR THE 2006 ELECTIONS WITH
COMMISSIONER COLETTA AS THE AL TERNA TE -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9B. It's an
appointment -- to appoint a commissioner to serve on the county
canvassing board for the 2006 collection.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a mot -- oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Watch it.
MS. FILSON: And--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for Jim Coletta --
MS. FILSON: On this particular one, I want to let you know that
there's only three commissioners that are eligible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Eligible, yes.
MS. FILSON: And that two of the commissioners that are
eligible currently serve on the RPC and have an RPC meeting the day
of the workshop, which is January 19th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that means Commissioner Fiala is the
only one who can serve on the canvassing board.
MS. FILSON: Well, unless they want to miss the RPC.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion?
Commissioner Fiala as the point person, and I'd be more than happy to
be a backup, because they have days that they do have special
Page 213
October 11,2005
meetings, especially when you get around elections, that seem to run
for day after day after day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we appoint two?
MS. FILSON: You can appoint an alternate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: An alternate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Alternate.
Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Then I have one other question. Commissioner
Coletta, if you're going to be the alternate, then will you be attending
the January 19th so that I can instruct your aide to make the
reservations?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. You mean the
training session.
MS. FILSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Not if I have to miss a
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Meeting.
MS. FILSON: Okay. And I'll check with the--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I've been to the training
meetings before, and I'm sure that I could get a refresher course from
Jennifer Edwards.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, you want to
revise your motion to nominate Commissioner Fiala as the primary
and Commissioner Coletta as the secondary?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, I really hate
to put this on you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I'm going to nominate you for
this with the backup being Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I could see, though, that your arm is
twisted.
Page 214
October 11,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's downright mean.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not going to second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor -- I'll 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?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2005-356: RE-APPOINTING BRADLEY W.
SCHIFFER TO THE BOARD OF BUILDING ADJUSTMENTS
AND APPEALS AND RE-ADVERTISE THE TWO AVAILABLE
POSITIONS WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT THEY MUST BE
CURRENTLY LICENSED - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us
to the next item, which is 9C, which is appointment of members to the
Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve all
three, being that there were three vacancies.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
MS. FILSON: On this particular one, there are two of them who
don't currently hold licenses. But as I quoted down below, that's
directory and not mandatory. And if you do appoint Mr. Morgan,
Page 215
~,^",._."",,,
~.,,>o,""""____'"
----~_._-
October 11, 2005
you'll need to waive section 5C of2001-55 because he currently
serves on two boards.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here is -- here is the issue --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that I've discussed with Ms. Filson.
There are two applicants who do not meet the licensing requirements
or the experience and eligibility requirements that are specified in the
ordinance, but the ordinance, of course, is not mandatory. We have
some latitude with respect to this.
The question that we need to put to the board is whether you
want to readvertise for two positions in the hopes that you get people
who are licensed in the appropriate fields, or do you want to make a
judgment that these other two applicants do have sufficient experience
that would permit them to perform their jobs on the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to retract my motion at this
point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And additionally, on this item, I want to let you
know that Bradley Schiffer, who is up for reappointment, has 100
percent attendance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion that we
approve Brad Schiffer and that we put the other two out again for
readvertising the position and hopefully that we can stimulate some
people that are licensed to get involved.
MS. FILSON: And I'll include in my press release that we would
like to have licensed applicants.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, there's a motion for
approval by Commissioner Halas --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
Page 216
_..""<.,.,"'---_.,.".~-
" ',,--
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and second by Commissioner
Henning, I think.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It had already been seconded -- to
appoint Bradley Schiffer and place the other two positions out for
advertisement again. Okay?
MS. FILSON: Do you -- I just need to ask one question. Do you
want someone that has a current license or someone who's held a
license and may be required and no longer renews it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not going to speak for the other
members of the board, but I would like to try for someone who is
current and meets the licensing requirements, and I think they would
be then more current and more able to make decisions with respect to
the zoning board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Okay. I'll include that in my press release.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
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 #9D
RESOLUTION 2005-357: APPOINTING CHARLES L. WRIGHT,
JR. TO THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY -
Page 217
_.,-~.~----
_...,~---_......~
October 11, 2005
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9D, which is
appointment of a member to the Collier County Airport Authority.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Move to appoint Charles
Wright, Jr., as the Everglades representative.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala, to appoint Charles Wright, Jr., to the
Collier County Airport Authority.
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 #9E
RESOLUTION 2005-358: APPOINTING JULIO ESTREMERA TO
THE IMMOKALEE EZDAlCRA ADVISORY BOARD -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9E, which is
appointment of a member of the Immokalee Enterprise Zone DAlCRA
Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And confirmation of the chairman and
vice-chairman.
The committee recommendation is Julio Estremera, and the
Page 218
October 11, 2005
recommendation for chairman is Fred Thomas, and for vice-chairman
is Robert W. Soter.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2005-359: RE-APPOINTING JEFFREY SCOTT
CURL TO THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9F, which is
appointment of a member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust
Committee.
MS. FILSON: And Mr. Curl's up for reappointment, and he has
perfect attendance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The committee recommendation
is Jeffrey Scott Curl.
Page 219
_.-,._"--."..,~~-
""-",.,-'-"'~->
~.~,---
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Fiala, second by
Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to compliment Sue
Filson for picking up on the attendance records that's taken place --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- what took place so we can
make our decisions based upon how involved people are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She does a good job. She's very
dependable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds like you're going to get
merit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you're not going to get any COLA.
Okay. All right. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9G
THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
Page 220
".____"0_
October 11, 2005
which is 9G. This item was continued from the September 27,2005,
BCC meeting. It's the annual performance appraisal of the county
attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we turn this over to you, Mr.
Weigel, or --
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. Is this 9G?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 9G.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, you may turn it over to me. I don't
know that I have - excuse me. I'll get my microphone up here.
I don't know that I have too much to say in the sense that it's
explained fairly simply, the process, in the one-page executive
summary .
Pursuant to my employment contract, the Board of County
Commissioners is to perform an annual evaluation based upon
submittal of your review of me October 1 st.
We've continued over to this date. All five commissioners have
reviewed the 16 points of evaluation and provided a rating for those,
with comments in several circumstances.
And you have had distributed to you, among other things, a
one-page sheet that shows the breakout of the rating -- evaluation
ratings of the commissioners as well as an averaging for each of those
categories, and an ultimate average of all of the scoring categories
comprised.
The -- just to be more brief, it shows that of the three-point rating
system that we use for the county attorney, needs improvement, meets
expectations or exceeds expectations and cumulatively the county
attorney rating is 2.17, which is within and above the "meets
expectations" evaluation standard.
The contract itself provides that these annual evaluations, that
between -- if the county attorney meets standard, the county attorney
shall receive no less than 3 percent, but there is a range of 3 to 10
percent that the board may consider as merit increase.
Page 221
~.-.,-.,--,""'-.,.-_..-"...... " '"
,~-----,,--
October 11, 2005
That's pretty much it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is the overall bottom line score,
David?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe it's 2.17. I don't have it in front of me
at this very moment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I -- like I've done just
about every year for the past five years, what I did is I've broken down
as far as percentage, and it comes up to 72.3 percent approval rating
out of a possible 100. And if you take 72.3 percent of the maximum
amount, which would be 16,800, that would bring an amount of
$12,146.40, and that's what I would recommend that we give Mr.
Weigel in recognition of his service for the past year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How much was that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: $12,146.40.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we round the 40 cents down?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. $12,146.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And there was a second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta has made
a recommendation for approval of $12,146, seconded by
Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
Page 222
-.- -".,~--_.,_.._----
".,-~..".;.,;.:_-'~~'
~,_.__."."-
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1. Commissioner
Halas dissenting.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, what I
indicate to you now is that your comments are important to me and to
our office. My office will be meeting tomorrow as an initial meeting
to review and see how we may implement and be responsive and more
responsive to the issues that you've brought forward. Some are not
altogether a surprise, I can assure you. As I've mentioned before, we
will continue to speak more concisely and briefly. Will that, I'll stop.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #9H
RESOLUTION 2005-360: APPOINTING MICHELE ANTONIA TO
THE ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
And that takes us to 9H.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9H, which is
appointment of a member to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The committee recommendation
is Michele Antionia. Are there any --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- nominations by the board?
Okay. Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala.
It's going to die from lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the
motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's a motion for approval for Michele
Antonio from District 5.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion for
Page 223
October 11,2005
approve -- or second. I didn't hear Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In that case, it's going to be from District
4.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We could move her to District
4. That wouldn't be a problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion?
Any other nominations?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #91
SUPPORT FOR CONTINUED STATE FUNDING OF THE
HORIZONS PRIMARY CARE CENTER - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 91, which is
support for continued state funding of the Horizons Primary Care
Center, and that's at Commissioner Coletta's request.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. It's simply, I'd like us to
pick up on the letter that our Representative Mike Davis has written,
September 20th. We discussed this briefly in our last meeting that we
Page 224
"'~".""'-,_......,,~
October 11, 2005
had, and that's why I asked to put it on the agenda. And we directed
the chair to write a similar letter of support.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that letter is on -- is on your
overhead right now so that you can see it, and that's the -- and that's
the support letter that we need.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have any problem approving it,
but I'm a little confused by the letter. I thought we were asking them
to continue funding, but we're saying that it has been -- it has been
supported from existing dollars within the county's budget for FY-'06.
What's the motivation for them to approve it if we're saying
we've already got it supported?
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Coyle, Berry
Williams, for the record. What the letter is describing is that the board
has approve for FY-'06 these dollars from our budget to support the
clinic; however, Collier Health Services applies for this grant in the
grant cycle that you've supported for the last three years ends
December 31 st. So this is a continuation grant.
You've approved the monies through our existing budget, but
now they're having to apply through the department of health to
continue the grant.
You still look confused.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All it's saying is we have our
match, give us -- please give us the grant.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But Representative Davis's letter went a
lot, lot further than that to explain why it made no sense for the state
to terminate ongoing funding for this purpose. We haven't made that
argument here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I agree.
Page 225
October 11,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All we've said is, hey, we've got the
match, and we've implied that if you don't give us the money, we'll
just pay for it ourselves.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Coyle, Representative Davis's
letter has had impact. And through that letter, initially the Horizons
Clinic wasn't going to be able to apply for continued funding. But
from that letter what they've allowed is for continued funding.
So Collier Health Services has made application. In fact, they
have the application pending to go, and this is just the commitment for
that continued funding to the local match amount for that continued
funding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the continuation of funding
problem has been solved, and all we're doing is just saying, okay,
we're eligible, here's our match?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then -- I thought we were still
having to fight for that. But okay, if it's been solved, this does the
trick. Okay.
Then 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.
I'll sign and send the letter.
Item #9J
Page 226
October 11, 2005
RESOLUTION 2005-361: IN SUPPORT OF THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY AND APPOINTING
COMMISSIONER COLETTA TO SERVE ON THE TOLL
AUTHORITY BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 9J, and it's a recommendation to adopt a resolution in support
of the establishment of the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority
and that the board act on an appointment of one of the BCC members
to serve on the Toll Authority Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we elect
Commissioner Coletta to that post.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Before we go any further with
nominations, let's make sure we understand, there are only three
commissioners who are eligible for this. Commissioner Fiala,
Commissioner Coletta, and Commissioner Henning, because it
requires that you have two years' remaining tenure, and neither
Commissioner Halas nor I have two years remaining tenure since
we're -- I guess we're going to be running for reelection next time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But in any event, there are only three
commissioners who can be considered.
Are there any other nominations?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd also want to--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nominations closed.
MR. MUDD: I'd also want to make the statement, too -- and I
think you need to -- just remind you for just a second. It's
commissioners that have two years remaining in their term, and it's
only for a two-year term.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: So whatever commissioner that you recommend
Page 227
October 11, 2005
today in your vote, in two years his position or her position will be up,
and then the only commissioners that will be eligible to fill that term
are the two commissioners that are ineligible this time, but they will
be eligible next time because three of the commissioners won't be
eligible for the next time around. And that -- I think that's the way it
was set up so that it would always continue in that process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of Commissioner
Coletta's appointment?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Fiala seconded.
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? Yes, Sue?
MS. FILSON: And if I just -- if I could just mention something.
I have a press release out now for the appointment that the Board of
County Commissioners gets to appoint and then each commissioner
gets to nominate one person. And if you want to give me their names
or pick from the pool of the applicants that I get, those five people that
each one of you nominate will have to fill our a gubernatorial
questionnaire which I'll provide to them and coordinate and send to
the governor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, I would like to see the pool
of people who've applied.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then if I have a person who hasn't
applied that I would like to nominate, I'd still like to retain that
flexibility. I suspect all the other commissioners would like to do that
Page 228
"_...,_..........__c
..."---.----
October 11, 2005
too. But at least if someone has taken the interest to apply, then we
should at least take a look at their application to see if they should be
one of our appointees. We'll actually get to make a decision on two
people.
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And one we will appoint ourselves. We
will jointly agree on one person, and then we'll select five other
nominees for the governor to make an appointment on.
Okay? So we've finished this business?
MR. MUDD: No. I don't think you've voted yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to vote on the
appointment.
MR. WEIGEL: There's a second --
MR. MUDD: You voted on the appointment of Commissioner
Coletta, but I need an approval or a motion on the chairman signing
the resolution.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the resolution,
seconded -- by Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 229
October 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then the approval of the resolution
passes unanimously.
Item #9K
THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE
COUNTY MANAGER - PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL -
APPROVED; MERIT PAY - APPROVED; CONTRACT
EXTENSION AND SALARY NEGOTIATIONS TO BE BROUGHT
BACK TO THE OCTOBER 25~ 2005 MEETING - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 9K, and this is the annual performance appraisal for the
county manager.
The items to be considered on this particular -- and I'm assuming
you want me to go through the same process?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta's already figured
out what your raise is going to be, so we'll let him go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. There's basically three items. You
approve of my performance appraisal, you figure out if I'm to receive
a merit -- a merit award. In my particular case, my contract says that
it goes into my pay, and I'm waiving -- voluntarily waiving that so that
I am keeping with my directors and my administrators so that it would
be a lump sum check.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's called leadership.
MR. MUDD: And that process -- and Commissioner, that's cost
me about $27,000 in my pay, but that's okay. Because I've done it for
a series of years now.
Page 230
October 11, 2005
And the last thing is, the members have the opportunity to extend
my contract if they so wish. And one of the things you wanted to talk
about, at least in a previous item, was how the final scores basically
turn out, and they're on your overhead, and I've given this to every
commissioner with the ratings and the comments that each
commissioner had yesterday as soon as I received them all. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, what does it work out to
be?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
performance, or the audit, performance audit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're just going to approve this,
and then we're going to decide on the merit increase as a secondary
motion. Okay.
We've got two commissioners who want to comment or ask
questions.
Commissioner -- who was first, Halas or Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Doesn't matter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would just like to say that I think
that once we get through approving the metrics here, I would like to
make a motion that we extend the county manager's contract. I also
think that we ought to put something into his base salary and then -- a
percentage in his base salary and then a percentage to be a lump sum.
I believe that we're very fortunate here in Collier County to have
not only his leadership, but also the leadership team that he's put
together through the years. And I think it shows tremendously when
we look at where we were four and five years ago when we had
wastewater running out of the plants, we were lacking water for the
citizens here in Collier County, and I think we've addressed a lot of
the growth management plans -- growth management issues. I think
we've made great strides.
Page 23 1
"----~-~-""._---"...~..."-~~-
October 11, 2005
So at that, I'll just go along with whatever my fellow
commissioners here believe we need to do and the direction we need
to go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I echo your sentiments. I think
I'm going to wait and deal with the pay part after we get this first vote
out of the way, and I have some comments I'd like to make at that
time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, do you
have anything else to say, or you just want to act on your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Let's--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then we'll have a vote on
Commissioner Henning's motion to accept the performance
evaluation.
All in favor, please signify saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then the performance evaluation is
accepted.
Now, let's move on to merit pay consideration. Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. There's something -- I did
a little bit of research, and I'd like to share some data with you.
Jim Mudd presently is paid $160,744. I'd like you to compare
across the board what his -- what similar people in other positions
locally are also making. Mr. Baker from the Collier County schools,
186,560, and I can assure you that his job is no harder than what Jim
Page 232
".~~-~._-,.,",_._-,""~.,,-~-,,..._....._,.>,.",..-~.._,._-~--..
October 11, 2005
Mudd has to attend to.
Over in Lee County, which is somewhat similar to us -- they
have a slightly bigger population, but their problems run about the
gambit that we see, 216,365.
Now, that's the tip of the iceberg. What concerns me is what
assurance do we have if we hold Mr. Mudd's pay at about its current
level while everybody else keeps advancing? If anyone took the time
to check their Florida Association of Counties Newsletter -- and very
rarely do we ever scroll through it to see what -- the job opportunities
out there because as commissioners we can't go shopping jobs in other
parts in other counties; however, they do advertise for such things as
county manager.
And I probably shouldn't be giving this information to you
because Jim might pick up on it and run with it. But over in Broward
County, the position is now vacant, and that pays $230,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are reasons for that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I'm saying is, this is the
time that we should address this pay and adequacy in a matter that's
going to be proactive so that we can be assured that we'll have Jim
Mudd's services for years to come.
We've all benefited from it. My job, and I know your job, has
been considerably easier with Mr. Mudd at the helm directing this
ship. And I'm going to come back and make some suggestions, but I'd
like the rest of the commission to pick up on this, and then I'll come
back in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're only talking about merit
here. That's what --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, how we apply the merit
pay means a lot. Whether we give it to him like he suggested as a
merit pay. I would like to see --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, if I can
Page 233
,.,'-.._,..........,---_."'-
October 11, 2005
finish.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How do you want to address the
salary that's in the contract. And I know we had the contract on the
previous agenda, but we don't have it on this agenda; am I correct?
MR. MUDD: You have the items -- you have the items in -- as
your backup, sir, on this particular agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The contract?
MR. MUDD: No, I don't have the whole contract there. It wasn't
on the previous agenda either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry, it was -- I thought
it was. Well, we need to renew your contract, and I thought the
suggestion was for four years.
MR. MUDD: Sir, my contract -- and it stipulates --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we're really getting ahead
of ourself. I think we're talking about merit, but I really believe that
we ought to address the base salary in the contract. That's how I'd like
to do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we -- why don't we vote on
the merit pay first, and then deal with the contract issue as the next
step, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anything else, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to -- well,
Commissioner Coletta has the matrix of their percentage, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll tell you what the
percentage would be; it would be 81.2 percent, and that would come
to 13,056.40, but I'd personally like to recommend that we give him
the full amount that we're allowed, the 10 percent, which would be the
16,000 -- I'm sorry -- 16,074.40.
Page 234
.--.-.-
October 11,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you round the 40 cents down.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sixteen thousand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sixteen thousand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's a -- seconded by Commissioner
Halas.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Is this -- Jim Mudd's contract
calls for it to be added to his salary, but yet he has said that he would
prefer it to be -- even though he said he's lost, what, $27,000, that just
as he has asked all the other employees in a salary range above
$100,000 to take it as a lump sum, and he -- and he's requested that.
Now, how do you commissioners feel about that? I would like to
honor that request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner -- wait a minute.
Commissioner Henning next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I would like to give it in a
lump sum, but I have to ask, is there a reason why we're not consistent
with what we did with the county attorney?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, is there a reason why we're
not being consistent? I mean, we're -- what we're saying is, we're
giving the county manager more -- what, is it, 16,700, but we wasn't
consistent with the county attorney on that, and I'd just --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be happy to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. Well, Commissioner Halas was
next, if you don't mind.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
Page 235
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I can remember what I was
going to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, remember it. Write it
down.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand where you're coming
from. But when you look at the matrix, I believe that the county
manager was higher in the matrix, and that's why he -- in the figures
that Commissioner Coletta came up with, that's why the sum was
higher as far as between 12,000 and 16,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's -- it was a difference, I
think, of 6 percent of the matrix between the -- what the county
attorney got and what the county manager got.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's true. But the county
attorney last year also had a pay raise that also went into his base
salary too. So what we're saying here is that, I think it's time that we
address the base salary issue here for the county manager because of
some of the information that was brought forth here in the discussion,
and that is, we want to make sure that we retain the services of our
county manager.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's just like being a baseball player
and somebody going out there and start a bidding war when they
realize that we have somebody that -- of the leadership capabilities
that we have here presently with the county manager.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm confused of what you said,
Commissioner. Because what I heard -- you said, we're dealing with
his base salary, but we already established we're going to do that in the
contract. So all I'm looking for is for somebody to tell me why we're
deviating between two employees.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can help.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
Page 236
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course, you know, I'm one
that suggested David Weigel's pay, and I also gave him the highest
rating of all the commissioners. And I think his services are
absolutely wonderful, and I value them greatly; however, you know,
you have to put everything in perspective.
What we get from the county attorney is a wonderful thing, and I
think we compensated him adequately at this point in time.
The county manager is performing some duties over and above
anything that we've seen county managers perform in the past. He's
got the -- he's brought together the whole community, he's removed a
lot of the opposition that we had. So I think we're talking two
different worlds on this whole thing.
And I'm not a baseball fan, but that's a good comparison. Every
baseball player has a certain value what they are going to be to
produce for the outcome. And we've got to make those decisions here
what we're doing. I'm very concerned that down the road in the near
future we might lose Jim Mudd because of the discrepancies in the
pay schedule that we have.
And I'm glad that you said that we should address that in the
contract. Meanwhile, I can justify myself the bonus going to Mr.
Mudd being the -- just about the legal limits that we can do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There is an additional consideration, and
it does impact the base pay issue, but it's not the base pay issue that
we're going to talk about in a few minutes.
A salary increase that -- a merit increase that results in a salary
level increase has a higher value than a merit increase that is paid out
in a lump sum, because if it's included in this salary, it is compound
from year to year.
So there is justification for making a --
using a different percentage to calculate Mr. Mudd's increase because
he is not requesting that it be included in his salary adjustment. So
Page 237
.....-,..."""""'-..-...-
October 11, 2005
that probably is the strongest argument for considering a different
percentage increase.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have a real problem with
giving the merit raise to the base salary, adding it to the base salary
when none of the others -- we say how valuable Jim Mudd is, and yet
so is Norm Feder and so is Leo Ochs and so is Joe Schmitt, and we're
not giving their merit pay to their base salary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we're not here either.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I understand that, but that's
what we've been talking about right now, right, is adding --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's what they said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. I don't think they said that at all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did they say?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think they merely said, let's give Jim
Mudd a higher percentage --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nope, nope. What did you say,
Commissioner Halas? You said, and add it to his base salary so that it
keeps on -- so that it raises that base salary, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what we just did with the
county -- the county attorney . We raised his base salary --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what he said.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and so I feel that we should do
the same thing for our county manager.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so I'm saying we should have
some consistency here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the consistency is, if we did
it for the county attorney, then I think it's time -- because in the last
three years we've given Jim Mudd a lump sum, okay. It hasn't
affected his base salary. I think the time has arisen here, or arised
(sic), that we should be addressing his base salary.
Page 238
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then we should also be doing
that for the other administrators who also are not getting it into their
base salary, because we don't want to lose them either.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think what
those -- those pay raises, whatever takes place, is done by Jim -- or
through Jim Mudd's -- he's the one that addresses that issue. We
shouldn't be micro-managing how he takes care of his people. We're
here to take care of Jim Mudd, and then he decides how he's going to
take care of his employees. He's the gentleman that doles out the pay
raises for the other people.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can I suggest the--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me go back to what Commissioner
Coletta was trying to do because I understood that that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- was the reason that he was trying to do
it. Jim Mudd has made the decision himself that he doesn't want to be
treated any differently than his employees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I don't think we should treat him
any differently than his employees. But we do have the option of
giving him $12,000 or giving him $16,000 as a lump sum bonus
because of the exceptional job that has been done.
And so the question was raised, well, why
are we doing that with Jim Mudd and we didn't do that with the county
attorney?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He explained that perfectly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's what I thought. And so -- but
that doesn't mean it gets added to his salary, his base salary.
Now, when we take the -- once we take this vote about merit,
we're going to talk about contract and, perhaps, salary, right? Okay.
Page 239
<.~,-,---",,,,,.,,,,.~,,,...,-.">~,._-~~---
October 11,2005
So we can deal with that later, but I -- do we agree that the talk about
the merit is not going to be added to Mr. Mudd's salary because he has
already said he wants to be treated just like his employees are treated?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, exactly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, Commissioner --
Commissioner Coletta has suggested a $16,000 salary increase; have
you not?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, a bonus.
MR. MUDD: Bonus.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, bonus. Merit increase.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bonus.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bonus, okay.
All right. And just so there's no misunderstanding there, I would
like also to go on record as saying that this county and the
commissioners had a lot of problems when most of us came aboard
here, and we didn't dig ourselves out of that hole of credibility and
infrastructure just because we were wonderful, okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We had a team.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The staff and the team that Jim Mudd
assembled and Jim Mudd's leadership has been invaluable in restoring
confidence in Collier County.
You heard today there were a number of public speakers who
said what a pleasure it is dealing with our staff and how helpful our
staff has been. We don't always agree with staff or with Jim Mudd;
we don't agree among ourselves. But the point is that we have made
tremendous progress in things from growth management to just public
relations. And it's -- it really could never have been done without the
staff and Jim Mudd and his management team. No matter how hard
we tried, it could not have been done without
them.
So I think that they are all deserving of whatever appreciation we
Page 240
October 11, 2005
can show them, and so I would support Commissioner Coletta's
proposal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call a motion.
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: Okay. It is approved, and it is the
16,000 how much?
MS. FILSON: Seventy-four.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What was the amount?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Seven oh one.
MS. FILSON: Sixteen thousand --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sixteen thousand, seven oh one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sixteen thousand, seven oh one. Okay.
Now, we want to consider the salary -- the
contract renewal?
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't find the contract in here.
Can you tell me what page?
MR. MUDD: Sir, what I did is, I basically took the piece out of
my contract that said -- if I can find it. It says in the executive
summary, the county manager's employment agreement also provides
that on or before September 30th of the year immediately preceding
the then ending year of the agreement, the term of this agreement may
be extended for a period of two years --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So nothing else -- nothing --
Page 241
October 11, 2005
you're not asking for any changes to the contract.
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I understand now.
Now, Commissioner Coletta provided us some valuable
information, but we need to compare it based upon measurable, and
you need to, in my opinion, do that by population. If you're going to
compare county manager to county manager, population and the time
also needs to be a factor of how long that county manager has been
with the county, because we might find that -- a good example would
be Sarasota County, which is probably good comp., that the county
manager hasn't been here as long as Jim Mudd, therefore, he might
rank -- might not have the adequate salary that he deserves, or vice
versa.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, Collier County's
schools, which deals with the same population, pays their supervisor
$26,000 more than we do the county manager.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And let me assure you, it is a lot more
difficult dealing with the Board of County Commissioners than it is
dealing with school children in this county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. They're a lot easier to
get along with, I'm sure.
So I mean, if we wanted to make a comparison, let's do what has
been done locally and just look at the Collier County schools.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or we can also look at
constitutional officer. I think the sheriff has the same number of
employees and -- or comparable employees and the same number of
people within the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I believe his
wage is set by the state, and it's not quite competitive. It's an elected
position. Mr. Mudd's is a very competitive position that we get to
choose, and he can leave here, well, just about any time he wants.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the sheriffs stuck?
Page 242
--.__._._~_._".,..~-
October 11,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The sheriffs stuck.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I suggest a potential resolution?
I'd like to suggest that we extend Mr. Mudd's contract, and at the same
time, express a willingness to take a look at comparable salary ranges
and do something with respect to that.
But we -- we, again, have to be consistent. And I want to make
sure that we do a good job taking a look at all of the employees' salary
ranges, and I think you're going to do that, so that we make sure that
everyone is -- has a salary range that is competitive and comparable to
similar circumstances elsewhere.
And so as long as we -- excuse me -- treat all of our employees
equally and give our other employees the opportunity to get the same
consideration, I think we should consider comparing Mr. Mudd's
salary with other comparables, and then we can make a decision about
that at the same time we consider the salary ranges that you're going to
come up with for the other employee; is that okay?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does that make sense for you? How
does that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does to me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- work for the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned right now that -- the
feeling I'm getting here on the dais is that we don't want to increase his
pay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, no, not at all.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what -- that's the way I'm
going, that all we want to do is extend his contract and not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wrong reading.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and not put anything in here as
far as compensation for the fine job that he's done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wrong reading, wrong reading.
Page 243
~".,..""'-""_.....---_.,
_._._»_","__.__~.~_,...__'_.'m.'_·_"_'_""''''_'__
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I make a suggestion on
salary, if I could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no.
Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When Mr. Mudd was originally
hired, I was the chair at the time, and I negotiated his contract and
brought it back to the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that's why it's so low.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's probably it, because
I was -- I didn't know what we were getting at the time and I beat him
to death on it.
However, I think it should be the chairman's position to sit down
with Mr. Mudd and go over all the facts and bring back a
recommendation for this commission at the next meeting of what we
should do. And I hope it's going to be something that keeps him from
considering looking out there in the market for a discrepancy that may
be like 30-, $40,000 difference.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be my suggestion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How do the commissioners
feel about that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't have a problem,
because what we're doing -- and there is one of Jim Mudd's goals, is to
have measurables, measurables on service; am I correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you think that's a reasonable
way to do that? In the end of the day, we can always change it, too.
And my last question, are you planning on going anywhere any
time soon?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I have another year before I'm -- before I'm
Page 244
,..,...,-..,......--""-----.
October 11, 2005
vested in the state retirement system. I have no plans to go anywhere
in the next year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we have a little bit of
time to approve the contract, to extend it another four years, and meet
with the chairman, have some measurables and comparables, and the
chairman can come back and tell us what he -- how he came up with it
and what the recommendations are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That won't take long. It really
won't. I don't see that we're delaying this situation very long.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I think Mr. Mudd understands how
much we appreciate his contributions here and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'd love to throw in just my two
cents and say that I would certainly hope that he'd be making at least
as much as the school board executive director, or supervisor -- or
what --
MR. MUDD: Superintendent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Superintendent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Superintendent. Yeah, we don't
want him to be making less than the superintendent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I understand. Have we
voted on the $16,000 salary?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, we did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I understand you want me to sit
down with the county manager, work out--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Four-year agreement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Four-year agreement or an extension on
the existing agreement modified.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it should be a four-year
agreement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's -- can we just approve the
Page 245
October 11, 2005
contract today to extend it for four years, and then the chairman come
back with a recommendation of the salary starting the first year?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's one package.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. It might be that Mr. Mudd won't
-- will not want to sign a contract for a long-term period unless he
knows what the salary's going to be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the last --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we just put the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the last one it was four years,
2010?
MR. MUDD: Sir, my original contract was for four years, two
months, and three days, and that was because when I first met with
Commissioner Coletta I said, you know, I really didn't want to be your
county manager, okay? I always wanted to be the public utilities
administrator. Tom Olliff made me the deputy, and I said I didn't
want to do that, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to switch with DeLony?
DeLony, you want to be -- you want to be the county manager?
MR. MUDD: So -- and so what I told Commissioner Coletta
when we were doing the negotiation, I said, you know, I really wanted
to be -- you know, if I'm going to be here, then let's make the time so
that I can at least be vested in the retirement system, and that's why we
did the four years, two months, and three days.
And I remember our original negotiation. Commissioner Coletta
said your start salary should be something that was about $30,000
higher than what we agreed to.
And I said, sir, let's not do that. Let's bring it down some. And I
felt more comfortable at that particular salary coming to the board
than I would have at a higher one.
And it was at the time that the board members were -- everybody,
Collier County was having problems, okay, as far as what we were
doing, and I didn't believe in my heart that it would be good to sit
Page 246
'~---"--'---'-
,..~._......;.",-~._",.._,_....._~,"'~'-'" . ~~~"~""~""""",.._-_.....". ---"-
"---,._~"~~---".,..._--_.._._._..."...."-----
October 11, 2005
there and come in with a high contract to the Board of County
Commissioners when we were trying to resolve particular issues with
the community and trust, so that's what we did when we negotiated
that, and it was important.
And you'll notice in my contract that it said that once -- that once
I get to be vested, that if we ever -- if you ever decide to throw me out,
that I would reduce -- it has one-year salary up to the time that I'm
vested, and then after I'm vested, I brought it back down to six
months, because I really -- that vesting was important because the
time that I would have spent would have been for not as far as the
retirement system was, if it didn't go that way.
So -- and oh, by the way, I was kind of reluctant to take the job.
But hopefully I've been good at it and I've been good for this county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I've noticed you've been having so
much fun at it, I know you'd do it at $25,000 less. But I'll be happy to
sit down with you and see what we can work out. Do you want to
extend the contract now to --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I believe -- I believe I have enough trust
in this Board of County Commissioners that I can take the extension
and we can work out a salary issue. We'll take a look at everybody
else's salary out there, and if -- and you can make that decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And then Board, how about
giving me some direction? When do you want me to come back to
you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Next meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion to that effect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Next meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Meet with Jim Mudd and
negotiate a contract and bring it back to us next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think he's saying that he'd be
Page 247
,....,." ".---""""""-
October 11, 2005
happy if you just extended the contract right now, and then we would
deal with the salary issue at the next meeting. Is that okay, Jim? Is
that what you want to do?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That would be fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You sure?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't understand. Why would
you put yourself at a disadvantage, agreeing to a contract before the
wages are in place? I mean, you've done such a great job
negotiating for the county on so many different factors. Why are you
putting yourself --
MR. MUDD: You said before, sir, after the next year--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's not greedy.
MR. MUDD: -- I could pretty much walk away at any time I
want to giving you a 30-day notice or a 60-day notice. So I don't
believe that's -- I believe that it's a negotiation process that we do, and
I pretty much don't care if you want to extend at this time or you want
to wait.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hey, look, if we -- they're saying they
want me to come back next meeting. Let's do it both at the next
meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Extend the contract if the board
wishes to and deal with the salary at the same time. And so we'll have
to sit down and get things ready for the next meeting to do that, okay?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got one more thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're coming back when for
your '05-'06 goals and objectives?
MR. MUDD: Sir, it's on -- it's on this agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Page 248
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you including on -- the
comments from the commissioners and your goals and objectives?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I will include those.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2005-362: AUTHORIZING THE
CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS AND/OR
THOSE PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY EASEMENTS
INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
REQUIRED FOR THE FOUR-LANE EXPANSION OF COUNTY
BARN ROAD FROM DAVIS BOULEVARD TO RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK ROAD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, that takes us to, I think,
10C; am I right, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That brings us to 10C. And this item is
continued from the September 27, 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 Road. It's
capital improvement number 33, proj ect number 60101 and--
MR. HENDRICKS: Bob.
MR. MUDD: -- Mr. Kevin Hendricks, real -- our real property
(sic) of transportation, will present.
MR. HENDRICKS: Or something like that, yes.
Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Kevin
Hendricks, right-of-way acquisition manager for your transportation
Page 249
.~-...,---,.._-
^' . _._.,_.___"....._'.._ . __..____."_._m.__
October 11, 2005
division, and I'll be very brief.
I know everybody wants to get out of here, but it's important that
the record of these proceedings reflect the fact that the resolution
placed before you was adopted only after you gave due consideration
to alternative alignments for the County Barn Road expansion project.
Previous board actions, including the adoption of transportation
master plans and the approval of the five-year work program, are
evidence that the board has considered alternative corridor plans and
that the board has even considered it to be environmental impacts of
the proposed alignment.
It's also important that the record of these proceedings reflect the
fact that the board has given ample consideration to environmental
impacts of other corridor alignments as well as this one, public health,
safety, and welfare factors, long-range planning options, and the cost
of competing options.
Nearly 180 citizens attended the public infonnation meeting that
we held this past July. Drainage and stonnwater management in the
project corridor was a major concern among the residents.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
MR. HENDRICKS: As a result, some design changes were
made, and the legal descriptions of the parcels to be acquired had to be
revised accordingly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I second that?
MR. HENDRICKS: And it is those legal descriptions that are
attached to the resolution that specify the exact property and the
interest in that property that will be condemned if necessary.
Your agenda package contains a rather extensive executive
summary of the project corridor's hydrology and of the stonn water
management pond siting report prepared for the project.
Pennits for the project have been applied for, and staff is
confident that they will be approved.
The resolution before you authorizes the condemnation of
Page 250
'--'----,_.._-~_._._~"^._.,.~~,._,-_.
~"".~"-".~~_...
_'_-''''~''_,-,-",,«,.~~
October 11, 2005
right-of-way and associated easements; however, condemnation will
only be pursued in the event that the negotiations for the right-of-way
fail to produce reasonable settlements.
Staff recommends that the board adopt this resolution. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any discussion by the board?
(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: Ladies and gentlemen, we have just
unanimously approved an eminent domain
action taking property under state law. We do this all the time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're good at it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're good at it.
MR. HENDRICKS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Except when the zoo
is involved.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you will get -- you will get some
proposals from the Trust for Public Lands as far as the zoo property is
concerned. They don't have them ready yet. They will meet with you
sometime this week. They've asked to be on every commissioners' --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Tomorrow.
MR. MUDD: -- calendar to talk to them about what they do and
how they do it. And then I expect a couple options that they'll present
Page 251
",-.,~~~~,..,_.,,~--~~._-~,",.'-'-"--
October 11, 2005
to the board here in the relatively near future, within the next week or
so.
So next meeting, I believe, we'll have some proposals for the
board to -
Item #10E
FY 2006 ANNUAL WORK PLAN FOR THE COUNTY MANAGER
- APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that takes us to G, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: E.
MR. MUDD: That takes us to 10E, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: E.
MR. MUDD: This item was continued from the September 27,
2005, BCC meeting. Review an approval of FY-2006 annual work
plan for the county manager.
Commissioner Henning just asked me if the comments from the
board or from each member would be added to that work plan, and my
comment was, yes, it will.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have E in here. Maybe
that's why I was confused.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've got it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I, for one, really like the work plan
for community development. I think it's well thought out, and it's very
specific, and it's designed, I think, to solve the problem and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I found it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I don't have any concerns about it.
Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to add a couple
of things. I've already spoken to Mr. Mudd about this. On page 12 of
Page 252
_..~.,--
'-"--~-'...'..-"."---'-~'"~-'"-'-'-'.---..~
October 11, 2005
40, or 10 of 13 that's on the bottom, we talk about other significant
county proj ects, and we have another one that I would like to add into
that nice long list, and that is the Goodland- Margood Historical Park
that we're working on. I feel that that's something that's really
important and should be mentioned in this.
Also -- let's see. Oh, I asked Mr. Mudd -- let's see, hold on --
about the overall operational improvements. And under B,
successfully implementing commercial and residential recycling, and I
just wanted to make sure that in there was also mentioned apartment
and condo recycling, the challenge -- you know, to meet that
challenge, because I truly believe that is a challenge, but I wanted that
to be included.
Let's see, is there -- I had a change in spelling, but I'm sure that
we've taken care of that. And -- let's see. Oh, I'd asked when the
kiosk would become a reality in the customer-friendly lobby of
CDES, and I was told somewhere right after the first of the year.
They're working on that now. So I just wanted Mr. Mudd to pay close
attention to that and make sure that that happens. Let's see.
Okay. I'll just let the rest of them go. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other comment? Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The annual performance, in my
opinion, needs to be upgraded. I mean, there's some things that were
tied to the governor's order. I think we're done with those. Probably
take those off the list.
I don't know if there's -- I can think of some other
recommendations on that, but, you know, I think that we need
somebody outside the county to assist us with that, and I was thinking
maybe the supervisor of elections since she was the HR person
previously, that she can assist us on updating it.
But originally Commissioner Carter did this one, updated this
one, along with the then county manager. And I'm -- I can't remember
Page 253
,.."..--.....,.".".."..---
-~----._.,.- .'.
October 11, 2005
who else he used. But I just think it needs to be updated a little bit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. There are some evaluation
criteria here that are difficult for us to get our arms around and really
to get very specific, and it's hard to provide you guidance as to
whether or not you're meeting them and what to do about it if you're
not.
But maybe what we should do is ask the county manager to
maybe come back to us with some specific measures of performance.
And it's something that really would have to be done in a workshop if
we were going to do it. But the best way to approach it, I think, is for
the county manager to take a look at some of these things and maybe
try to get them a little more specific.
Would that address your concerns, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I -- that would be very
difficult for somebody -- and cumbersome to the county manager to
say, go write your performance manually. I think that one of the
commissioners along with the county manager and somebody in the
field of doing that previously. That's the only reason. I know if it was
me, I'd feel very uncomfortable about it, making those kind of
changes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I wouldn't, but nevertheless.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know you wouldn't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd feel real comfortable
with it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I wouldn't either.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But nevertheless, well, you want the
county manager and I to get together and--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And try to work out something that
makes sense? We can't do it by the next meeting, but we can do it
sometime.
Page 254
~ .__m.._.."..____-·,·~
__._'_^.~.~., _.__"""",.____,,,,_".___m_M
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The supervisor used to do that same
thing for the county before she became that -- this position.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Well, why don't I get together
with the county manager, and then we'll see if we can't make some
recommendations to you about how we proceed. Is that okay with
everybody?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now. With respect to approval of this
particular plan, can we accept it as it is and recognize that we can
always improve it as we go forward?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I don't see why not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I'd like to make a motion to
approve the plan for 2006 as written with understandings that it can be
modified, changed, and improved upon as that comes forward to us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that, as long as you
include the commissioners' comments on the previous.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. And I'll include the
commissioners' comments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the goals.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning, to accept the
work plan with the understanding that certain refinements can be
made, including addition of commissioners' goals.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
Page 255
-------,,_.,..,_._''''_..~,...__.....~~_.~._-
October 11, 2005
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
Item #10G
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 12 MILLION
GALLONS PER DAY REVERSE OSMOSIS EXPANSION TO THE
POOLE AND KENT COMPANY, BID 05-3879, PROJECTS
NUMBERS 700971 AND 710221 FOR $24,373,000.00-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOG. It's a
recommendation to award a construction contract for the South
County Regional Water Treatment Plant, 12 million gallons per day
reverse osmosis expansion to the Poole and Kent Company, bid
05-3879, projects number 700971 and 710221 for $24,373,000. And
Mr. Phil Gramatges, senior project manager for public utilities, will
present.
MR. GRAMA TGES: For the record, I'm Phil Gramatges,
principal project manager, public utilities engineering. And, of
course, this is item 1 OG, and what we're requesting is that you approve
the staff recommendation to award this contract to the Poole and Kent
Company for the amount of money that Mr. Mudd has stated.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
Page 256
~ ,.,.~_.,-,._~..-.-_..,."~,~,."....~,-
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this the one by the landfill
that we just expanded?
MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Completed?
MR. GRAMATGES: It is in the plant in the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant, which is next to the fill, to the
landfill.
MR. MUDD: The ultimate goal is to have it for 20 million
gallons. You did the first eight million gallon reverse osmosis. Three
years after that came on line, you were due to bring the next 12
million gallons on line in that particular plant.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The building is already built to
accommodate this, so there's no -- there's no building of any
infrastructure other than just the skids that need to be put in place, I
believe.
MR. GRAMATGES: That is correct, Commissioner. And I
would like to add that this will expand the plant to the maximum
capacity that it can be.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
Page 257
."~___"_'__"'_~'"'~"~'__"_''-''''_''V'"""~'__
October 11, 2005
Item #101
DISCUSSION REGARDING ST AFF INTERPRETATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROVISION IN THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN PERTAINING TO THE RE-
DESIGNATION OF RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT
SENDING LANDS TO EITHER RECEIVING LANDS OR
NEUTRAL LANDS - APPROVED STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS TO REVIEW ALL PARCELS AS ONE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 101. It's a discussion regarding staff interpretation and
implementation of a provision in the growth management plan
pertaining to the redesignation of rural fringe mixed-use district
sending lands to either receiving lands or neutral lands.
And Mr. David Weeks from comprehensive planning will
present. If you remember correctly, this was a -- this was a Mr.
Richard Y ovanovich petition to the board, and we're finally hearing it.
Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, David Weeks, planning manager
in the comprehensive planning department. I briefly want to give a
little bit of background on this item, identify the two specific issues
that we need to discuss, and then the implications of a decision, should
you make one in support of Mr. Yovanovich's position.
You might recall during 2001, 2002, during the process of
hearings for the rural fringe amendments to our growth management
plan wherein we were designating sending lands, receiving lands, and
neutral lands, that several times you heard from property owners
telling you that their property did not warrant a sending designation.
They advised you that their property was cleared for agricultural, or
otherwise had been cleared or altered such that it did not make sense
to be designated as sending lands.
Page 258
--~_.."."_..,.,.. ,.-....--.......,..--..",--.-.-","--
October 11, 2005
In recognizing those -- those assertions, you established a
provision in the future land use element that for properties along the
border of the sending lands, that is a designated sending but abutting
either receiving or neutral lands, that those property owners would
have a one-year time window to submit data to the county in an effort
to demonstrate what they were telling you, that is that their property
did not warrant that sending land designation.
You also took into account the fact that staff was telling you that
a Swiss cheese sending land designation, that is sending lands with
little pockets or holes of receiving or neutral land did not make sense,
and that's why you limited this provision to those properties along the
fringe of the sending designation.
Staff sent out the required notices to the sending land owners
along the border of the sending and neutral, or sending and receiving
properties, boundaries. We received a total of 12 petitions asking to
have the properties redesignated, but those petitions, in most cases,
represented multiple tax parcels. Only in a few instances was a
request for a single parcel, and that really comes down to the heart of
one of the two issues that Mr. Yovanovich has raised.
Staff has viewed each individual tax parcel or legal description as
a property, and there are two criteria which are listed on the second
page of the executive summary. Number one, for property to qualify,
it must be abutting, contiguous to, which staff viewed as touching,
receiving or neutral designated lands.
And then, secondly, there must have been appropriate
environmental data to show that the designation for sending lands was
not warranted.
And I would tell you that it's a subjective determination to
evaluate that environmental data, but it is a factual matter as to
whether or not a property is abutting the border of a sending and
neutral or sending and receiving lands.
Mr. Y ovanovich, in his public petition on June 14th, told you that
Page 259
.-,--
.···...M·"'..".-.,._.,...._'···
October 11, 2005
he believes that a property should be viewed as the aggregation of
parcels under -- contiguous parcels under the same ownership. And
I'd have to tell you, that is consistent with how the requests were
submitted to us. I told you there were 12 requests submitted to us for
redesignation, but they represent 92 tax parcels.
Staffs position is that we should review each of those tax parcels
individually. We should not stack them together. And I have a
visualization which is, unfortunately, not -- thank you -- not real easy
to see.
But there's five different groupings of properties here, and those
that are shown in the red color are those which are viewed as
contiguous to receiving or neutral, and then the purple or lavender
color are those that are piggyback or stacked behind those contiguous
parcels.
So you can see the impact of making your -- a decision to agree
with Mr. Y ovanovich, would be to go from 10 tax parcels to a total of
28 tax parcels, or in acreage figures, from 624 acres up to about 1,058
acres.
The second issue pertains to who it is that makes the
determination that a property warrants a redesignation. Staffs
position has so far been that county staff will make the determination
as to which properties warrant the redesignation, then we would bring
only those parcels to you as a growth management plan amendment
for your consideration.
Mr. Y ovanovich has the view that all properties that have
submitted this request should be brought to you to make the
determination.
You might recall that during the discussion of the public petition
back in June, staff referred to that as somewhat of an appeal process,
and that's what we're referring to, that ability to have all parcels
viewed.
And as I've advised Mr. Y ovanovich, I can recall that staff,
Page 260
October 11, 2005
myself included, did advise property owners back during the time of
the rural fringe amendments, that we were going to be bringing all
properties to the county commission; however, the director of this
department a few months ago made the determination that that would
not be the case, that only those that staff determined warranted the
redesignation will be brought to you.
The difference there, the impact would be, instead of bringing 12
individual tax parcels that staff has determined warrant redesignation,
we would bring all 92 tax parcels to you for consideration.
The additional impact would be a matter of probably a few
hundred dollars to send out notices to surrounding property owners,
because we are required to have a neighborhood information meeting
now for site-specific comprehensive plan amendments.
So going from the 12 tax parcels to the 92, if we bring all of them
to you as a comprehensive plan amendment would increase the
number of properties by a hundred. And, again, I think that would
translate into hundreds or maybe a thousand or two thousand dollars,
perhaps, to send out the additional notices should we make that
decision.
Staffs position, to sum it up, is that we would ask that you stick
with us and allow us to look only at each individual tax parcel as to
whether or not it is contiguous to the boarder of receiving or neutral
lands and, secondly, that you let staff make the determination as to
which properties should be brought to you as a growth management
plan amendment.
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Good evening. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich.
I just want to point a few things out that David didn't point out.
Going back to, you know, the time when we were coming up with
these sending lands, you had a lot of people standing in front of you
saying, wait a minute, I don't think my property really is sending land
property. We need a process in place to allow me to present my own
Page 261
~ __________..__'M~."~. "
.-..<1.. -..,;,,-.
October 11,2005
data and analysis to you, the county commission, to determine
whether or not designating me sending in the year 2002 is an
appropriate designation.
And you adopted a policy in your comprehensive plan that says,
for all properties designated sending where such property is
contiguous can partake in this process. It doesn't say parcels.
The term parcel is used when you're talking about your TDR
process. So you used the term property, and I think that's because you
had property owners standing in front of you saying, we have a
problem with this. We need an opportunity to explain why we think
you're wrong.
These property owners didn't say to you, oh, by the way, I have
an 80-acre farm and I bought five 16-acre parcels to comprise that 80
acres. They were talking to you and saying, I've got an 80-acre farm.
That's the property they were talking about. They weren't talking
about individual parcels.
And I've put an example up on the visualizer that I think kind of
will hit home on the point. You can have two 80-acre parcels next to
each other and immediately adjacent to the receiving. You have the
receiving lands to -- I'll call that the north.
You can have an 80-acre piece that, perhaps, Commissioner
Coyle, you bought that and you were fortunate enough to buy one
80-acre piece, and all 80 acres would be eligible for this process.
I, on the other hand, over a period of years, long before you guys
were talking about this sending land designation, put together an
80-acre farm, and I had to buy four 20-acre parcels.
You get the full 80 acres to be considered contiguous. I only get
the first 20 acres. The other 60 acres, I'm not eligible under staffs
determination, even though the word parcel never shows up anywhere
in the comprehensive plan.
And I want to put up kind of a real-life situation. Not we're not
here today to argue the merits of any of the environmental data. We're
Page 262
"._.........__._._. _.. m'~"'" . ___ ..___~"_..
October 11, 2005
just saying, please let us stay in the process.
Here is a roughly 55-acre farm. I don't know if you can zoom out
a little bit, Jim, yeah.
MR. MUDD: I'm working on it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The top third of that farm is a IS-acre
piece, then you have another 15 acres, and then another IS-acre parcel
beneath that.
We submitted on the entire farm. In fact, we deliberately didn't
submit on 10 acres of the farm, because -- if you can zoom out a little
further -- you'll see there's wetlands involved on that piece of property.
We only submitted for the 45 acres that are actually cleared.
Now, we got a letter back from staff that said, only the top 15
acres is eligible. The remaining 30 acres that's clearly been farmed
and is immediately contiguous to the 15 acres and part of the property
is not eligible under the process.
We don't think that's what was intended when the compo plan was
adopted. We think you said to people who own property, bring in
your environmental information and we'll consider your property.
And we've done that. We haven't just simply submitted a
two-sentence application. We had to pay environmental consultants to
come out on the property, analyze it, provide that data and analysis to
your staff for a determination as to whether or not we should be
considered for a redesignation.
Now, in this particular case, staff said, you're right. The top 15
acres we're going to redesignate. We're going to bring it to you.
You're ultimately the one who decides. We still have to come to you
to plead our case.
But they said for the 30 acres immediately adjacent, sorry,
you're, quote, not contiguous because we're looking at this on a parcel
by parcel analysis instead of a property analysis. We don't think that's
right. I have a couple of other examples, same situation.
All we're asking is for you to honor the process that -- as we
Page 263
_.....~.._.,,,.~--.,,,._.._....__..,'_.,..
-~----~~"---
""".-,-.~.-
October 11,2005
understood it when it was being negotiated at the podium. We had a
few clients who were concerned about being designated sending.
You said to these property owners, we're going to consider your
property. You have to be on the fringe of the fringe. That's the kind
of language we were using. We aren't going to let you be smack dab
in the middle of the sending area. You had to be adjacent to either
receiving or neutral, and you can come in and submit a request.
You're only talking about -- if I understand the staff report --
you're only talking about 12 property owners that submitted an
application. You're only going to be hearing from 12 people, whether
it's for, in this case I get -- in this particular one, do I talk to you about
three parcels or do I talk to you about one property. You're only going
to hear from me once on this particular case. And I've got to be here
anyway because you've recommend -- staff has recommended
approval.
So you're not adding to any public review, any extensive period
of time. All you're simply doing is spending some additional money
to mail out notice to let people know what's happening around them.
We don't think that this is a big burden on staff to review the
information we provided to them. We've given it to them. They've
got -- they've had it for several months, almost a year, maybe a year at
this point, for them to just go back and verify the information on the
adjacent parcels, and then give us our day in front of the Board of
County Commissioners.
You may agree with staff and say, there's no reason to change the
designation. That's fine, at least we will have had the day that was
promised to us that we would be able to come and speak to you.
I'm not asking you to vote on the merits of any petition today.
I'm just simply saying, let the 12 petitions that submitted continue on
the process.
And it's an unfair situation to now interject a parcel analysis into
the comprehensive plan language that doesn't exist. The term parcel
Page 264
--->--
.__,_,_~_~.,.e'__>.__<."'. ú..__.·._,,__"O"'""~
October 11, 2005
had been used for the TDR process. It had a meaning. We don't think
it has the same meaning here. I mean, the language is short. It's
simple. It's right in front of you in your executive summary.
And I think what David pointed out is, he told the property
owners as we were kind of negotiating this provision that everything
was going to come to you anyway and you were going to be the
ultimate judge.
Now, the former person in charge of comprehensive planning
said, that's no longer the deal. You're not going to get your day in
front of the Board of County Commissioners. We don't think that's
fair.
We think the way it should go forward is allow the 12 petitioners
to come forward, present their information to the Board of County
Commissioners, have the Board of County Commissioners vote yes or
no to redesignate, and then give us an opportunity to continue in on
the process.
And as I pointed out on June 14th, we got our letters from staff
saying that you're not, quote, contiguous about a week before the
deadline to apply for our own private comprehensive plan amendment
that staff is saying we now can do.
We had no opportunity to get in and do that, and what that means
is that these individual property owners are now going to have to
spend $16,000 to make an application to have the information
submitted to staff, that we've already submitted to staff, that was
supposed to be part of a one-time free process that now we're going to
have to pay $16,000 to participate in, and we can't do it this year
because we missed the deadline because we didn't have time based
upon our getting our determinations from staff. We've got to wait till
next year to actually get into the process.
So what we're asking for, is honor the spirit. You had individual
property owners up in front of you requesting a process that we can go
through to air our grievances, if you will. Only 12 property owners
~
Page 265
-,~_".."^H_'_'_·__ ._
October 11, 2005
felt like they needed to provide this information.
We're -- most us are going to be here anyway because we're
going to have to defend the decisions that staff made to recommend a
change, and also look at the overall property and not look at it on a
parcel basis, and I think that that exhibit kind of explains the inequity
of the situation and why we should be able to continue on. And the --
you know, the real-life example of a farm where 15 acres we're saying
is okay, but the next 30's not because you didn't buy all the property
all at one time. And that's basically what I needed to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go back to the aerial photograph. If
you would, Jim, just remove that page.
Is this your actual client's property?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This isn't just an example?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is it. This is one of -- I have three
clients. This is one of them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is the actual property that we
submitted for redesignation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Does staff believe that any of this
property shown here should be receiving lands?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They recommended the top 15 acres to
be receiving.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But the other two parcels are not?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I got a letter saying that they're not
eligible because they're not, quote, contiguous. So they didn't even
analyze it, as far as I know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, let staff -- David, what can
you tell us about that?
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, yes, what Mr. Yovanovich has
stated is correct in that staff only made the determination on the tax
parcels that were abutting receiving; therefore, our recommendation to
Page 266
October 11, 2005
you would be, when we get on that point, that only that northern 15
acres, if that's what it is, be changed to receiving.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What would you do with those other
parcels? You would leave those as sending lands --
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and you would give someone TDRs if
they sent density from those two areas?
MR. WEEKS: That would be up to the property owner if they
wanted to continue in the agricultural operation, if they wanted to
some day cease that and develop it with a single-family home per tax
parcel, or to sell off the TDR credits.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But wasn't our purpose in establishing
the sending lands to do that for environmentally sensitive property?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, it was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And would you say this is
environmentally sensitive?
MR. WEEKS: With the exception of the one corner, I would say
it's not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Clearly not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, I understand your dilemma.
You know, I understand the problem here, but -- Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I understand what you're
asking. You're just asking for us to be able to consider it when we
consider the rest of these items.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And your client wouldn't have
to pay the $16,000 fee up front; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct. Just let me continue in on
the process and make my case, and I'll bring you the three other -- the
two others that are also farm fields. And I'll make my argument, and
Page 267
..".....,,~_ '<R - . ---~~.,-" -,- ...."-,
October 11, 2005
you may say, Rich, no, we think we want to keep it sending.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Weeks? If I could, please. What
possible -- one more time, what is the downside of allowing this to go
forward for full consideration by the commission?
MR. WEEKS: The real downside is not significant. It will take
additional time for all parties involved, that is staff to prepare for you
to review the hearing, there will be a minor financial impact of having
additional properties for which we must send notices to the sending
property owners of every property that comes before you for a plan
amendment, which I'm estimating is in the hundreds of dollars, maybe
up to a couple thousand dollars.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A couple thousand dollars. His
client probably has investments in millions of dollars. The fee, there's
no fee that we can charge to try to recoup some of this cost?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir. This intentionally -- this whole process
intentionally was to be at the expense of the county, again, going back
to the notion that these property owners were saying, county, you
made a mistake in designating me sending.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would it be improper for me to
ask if the petitioners would be wining to pay that cost? I mean, this is
something the county's going to have to bear, and it's a -- why are we
paying for this, you know, just to help the petitioner out? I'm kind of
lost.
MR. WEEKS: But let me -- certainly, number one, it's a policy
decision for the board to make. I would also point out that at the time
of the plan amendment that created this provision, there was no
neighborhood information meeting requirement, so this expense is
something that we, ourselves, have created just within the last year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand.
But I'm also worried about the property owners out there in the fact
that they have -- they have their day in court. I'm not ready to rule on
this now by any means, and I don't know which way I'd go on it. But I
Page 268
---,--...-.......-,.-. ,.,.."..__.~--"-_.
October 11, 2005
am concerned with the fact that we're kind of cutting them off at the
knees.
Anything you can think of for covering this expense? And
nobody ever built this into the program, so help me with this, Mr.
Y ovanovich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you know, I'm fairly certain that
the small amount that's out there -- I mean, if you're talking about a
thousand bucks, I'm sure I can probably--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, he said a couple thousand
possibly.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: He thought it -- well, you're going to cap
me at two grand?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, no. What I'm saying
is, is there a possibility, you think, that we could get anyone out there
that wants these considerations to be able to pay for the cost of
whatever staff --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think you need to say to those of
us that want to stay in the process, if there's additional cost related to
the petition -- because remember, they've already recommended--
they're already going to advertise the top 15 acres on this piece, and on
my other one they're going to recommend approval as well on part of
it. So it's not a whole -- it's not all new advertising costs. But I can --
I'll work with your staff, and maybe you need to say, if you want to
stay in the process, you ought to cover the mailing of the notice.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you where I'm going
with this. One of the biggest concerns I had during this whole rural
fringe process has been how we're going to protect those people that
have the credits, the transfer development credits, and are we always
going to have enough of them in cases where it's never going to be
land that's can be put into reservation.
In this case, I don't see how this ever could be, which would be a
good argument if it was brought back before us.
Page 269
--~----"""...-".-"._-._._-"--"_.._>,.._...._--
.~-..,._<""."'---'-."'""
October 11, 2005
Why would we want to have this on the outside? If this thing
here was receiving land, they couldn't do a thing unless they bought
more credits, which would raise the value of those credits even more.
You know, I'm willing to keep an open mind on this, and I
wouldn't have a problem bringing it back if we could cover the cost on
it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm certainly -- you know, again, if
you're talking about my three clients paying their fair share, I can't
imagine that a few hundred bucks per client's going to stop them.
David's talking about every parcel property, not just my three
clients. So I mean, certainly we'll pay our share, but I'm not going to
__ I'm not going to pay for the others who aren't standing before you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Other than that, you
would have to pay $16,000 for each client?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. I'd have to come back in, and I
have to wait another year, and we've got to pay another $16,000,
which I don't think was the original intent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think it was either.
Mr. Weeks, please, a little more -- little more information on this.
You heard the argument I'm making on this. Tell me where I'm
wrong in my thinking.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I won't be the slightest bit
offended. Just try not to use any mean words, okay.
MR. WEEKS: Well, it's purely a policy decision, you know. I'm
telling you that staffs position is that we wanted to view each tax
parcel separately. We thought that was the appropriate thing to do,
and that's how we, throughout this program, have looked at it.
Mr. -- in other places within the rural fringe language, those areas
that specifically talk about the TDR process, the language is very
explicit in saying, lot or parcel. In this particular case the word
property is used as opposed to parcel, and that leads to the whole issue
Page 270
October 11, 2005
that we're having here today.
As you mayor may not recall, this provision was added, so to
speak, on the fly. It was while we're standing here at the podium
making the presentation. You've heard this input from the public, and
you say, well, we need to create a provision to address this issue for
these people. And so while we're here at the public hearing process,
we created this language.
In retrospect, I think property is a poor choice of words if your
intent was tax parcel by tax parcel. If your intent was to look at it
more broadly, as Mr. Yovanovich suggests, then the wording is fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Coletta, we will pay for
our -- the advertising costs related to each of my three clients. We'll
pay for the mail notice.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I, for one, would like to
see this included in the process, and that we expect the petitioners,
whoever wants to get involved with it, over and above what staff has
already put on the dockets for consideration, to pay their fair share of
the costs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, did have
you some comments or question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just remembered it was
property owner that we were talking about at that time, and I didn't
know if there was any other parameters that we set, whether it was a
year or not. I know in this particular section, section 20 or 24? Staff
was supposed to analyze
the whole section for listed species.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, that red cockaded woodpecker.
MR. SCHMITT: Section 24.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. That was section 24. That's not us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, that's not you?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're not -- we're not -- we don't
Page 271
,-_.".,.~.".,~
......."".__.__.....^_d..·>
October 11, 2005
have any woodpecker issues.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Nope, nope. We have no woodpeckers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But the concept, as I understand it,
always was, if you as the property owner believe that the science that
determined that you were supposed to be a sending or receiving area
was faulty, then you had the chance to come in and present
information that would demonstrate that it wasn't.
And certainly it seems to me that it would be a real stretch to say
that the two parcels to the south of the one at the top are
environmentally sensitive when the one at the top is not considered to
be environmentally sensitive.
So I believe that there is a glitch in this process. I appreciate
staffs interest in not wanting to open up a can of worms that could
lead to unanticipated consequences. But I believe we should do what
we can to make this thing easier for property owners if they have a
good, clear argument that this is not environmentally sensitive lands.
And so I would also agree that you should be able to bring this back.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One of the things I worry
about though is the protection that staff provides for loopholes. How
many times we approve something that's so obvious that these couldn't
be anything at all but receiving lands, and then there's another one that
obviously isn't, but now we've changed the ruling, and all of a sudden
there are loopholes that strangle us. And I worry, especially when we
talk about contiguous. My goodness, you would come -- everything
could be contiguous. As soon you've designated one, then the next
one, like a domino effect, becomes contiguous, and I truly worry
about that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And Commissioner, remember,
this is just a one-time shot that you've offered to all the property
owners.
Page 272
,"--,--",^"".",.^~,~~..-.,,-",.,_..,.--",,~-..-------
,.,..,......,,',...,----~_...._..
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, to all the property owners, but
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And only 12 of us actually applied
thinking that -- and we have to provide environmental data to -- and
we're not there yet. I mean, we're just asking you, please let me
present our environmental data. And you may say, you know, Rich, I
don't know what you're thinking, but that clearly is not receiving
lands. That's sending lands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, one of the important factors is that
the time had already expired when anybody else can come in and
make this claim.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You see, if they didn't get in at the
proper time, nobody can come in now. So it's only for those people
who got in before the deadline. So whatever we do now does not open
the door up for any consideration beyond those parcels.
Am I right about that, staff?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. You only had it -- there was a
one-year period, and Mr. Yovanovich's client was part of that process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if you didn't get in in
that one-year period of time, you're not in now and you're not going to
be in now.
MR. SCHMITT: And it also had to be properties that were
accumulated prior to the passage of these ordinances. You couldn't
have done it after the fact.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, as far as -- just one more -- just so
I can interject real quick. It's that magenta color, okay, that you have
on your slide, that purple color that sits here, that would be additional
properties that you would have to adjudicate on if you agree with Mr.
Y ovanovich.
And I believe, if you take a look at group four, okay, I believe
Page 273
,,~".,-~"---
October 11, 2005
there's -- I don't know if there's still an active lawsuit by that group
against us. The 15,000 Coalition, is there still an active lawsuit?
MR. WEIGEL: It's more abuned (sic), but not quite gone.
MR. MUDD: And they're one of the 12 that we'd--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, boy.
MR. MUDD: -- have to -- that you'd have to deal with, and that
was going to be basically in group number four.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification. What Mr
Mudd is referring to is correct on half of Mr. Y ovanovich's request,
and that is that you look at the ownership pattern. That represents
those five groups.
The total number of properties that have had an application
submitted, a request submitted, is a total of 92 parcels. This is only
the North Belle Meade area. You might recall that there's four distinct
different receiving areas. Well, this is only one of those four.
We have requests in all four of those receiving areas -- the
sending abutting those receiving or neutral areas. Just a point of
clarification. It's still not a significant impact, but it's just that this is
not all that you're dealing with, that's all.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But it's still only 12 properties that --
property owners that actually came in and asked for the change. So
it's not like you're going to say, okay, by giving my clients what they
want, you're now going to have hundreds standing before you. You're
still only going to have 12 standing before you presenting their case.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let's narrow it down.
Exactly what properties are we talking about and what we aren't
talking about?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you know, I'd be fine if you just
wanted to do this for my three clients. I mean, honestly, they're the
only ones that are paying me to be here. If someone else is going to
get a benefit of this, that's fine. But it's American Farms, and then
Page 274
,..,'-~^.,-_.-.,.,......
~""'''''''i'_~''''<''''
--_.----.,...-+...~._..--'-'"-
October 11, 2005
there's the property known as the Mitchell property, and the Clark--
the Mitchell property and the Clark property. So it's, you know,
cumulatively probably a couple hundred acres.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Weeks, does this sound like
it's realistic just to limit it to this because they're here? I'm a little bit
lost on what would be fair on this part of the process.
MR. WEEKS: Well, Commissioners, I think there's a matter of
equity here. True, he's representing three of the five you see here, but
how can we justify treating his clients differently than the other
property owners just because they're not here?
The other comment, if you'll permit me, is regarding the
advertising require -- not advertising, per say, but the requirements for
the neighborhood information meetings. Given that we think we're
only dealing with a matter of hundreds of dollars, and maybe a couple
thousand or so, I would suggest to you that we not have the property
owners themselves have to pay that. We're going to spend a fair
amount of staff time sending out notices trying to get that money from
them, and I just don't think it -- the equation just doesn't warrant it.
We'd respectfully ask that you not direct us to do that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me -- let me try to understand a little
better what you're trying to tell us with respect to group four. Has
group four submitted similar information of an environmental nature
to demonstrate that they should not be receiving lands?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir. In staffs opinion, none of group four
would qualify.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if we made a decision to permit what
Mr. Yovanovich is talking about, then none of that land in group four
is affected by that decision and we're -- we should not fear a precedent
of any kind with respect to that particular land?
MR. WEEKS: It's affected in the sense that those properties
would come to you for consideration. And when you get to the meat
Page 275
October 11, 2005
of the matter, that is, is there environmental data that demonstrates
that the designation should not be sending, staffs opinion is, no, they
clearly do not qualify for change in designation. But in the sense of,
would it get to you for consideration, yes, that would change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're one of the 12 -- 12 owners.
MR. WEEKS: They're one of the 12 petitioners, and they're one
of the five that would benefit from this determination of looking at
property .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Accumulation thing?
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're saying to me that all of the land
that is in red and magenta is owned by one owner?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir. Those are the five different -- each of
those is individually owned, but those are the five that would benefit
from viewing property as the aggregation of ownership, of contiguous
ownership. Mr. Y ovanovich represents three of those groups, and
then two other separate entities own the other two.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I think I understand.
Okay. Commissioner Fiala has a question, then I think we need
to move on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I really would like to go with
staffs recommendations, quite frankly. If -- I'll wait till Mr. Mudd is
done.
Okay. David, I would really -- I would really like to make a
motion to approve both of staffs recommendations, but with the
understanding that when you see a property so clearly as the other
ones showed, that there was nothing environmentally sensitive on the
rest of that, you would have the ability to either come to us and say,
this doesn't make sense, we feel we should approve, or just do that
administratively amongst yourself, rather than having to adhere to
ordinances that are in place when, in cases like this, they don't make
any sense.
Page 276
._-~~","""'''~
.~,.~,,,.;,,.__...._<,,,-,..,,."~'~'''~-''...
October 11, 2005
Now, could we approve staffs -- both of staffs recommendations
but with that stipulation that you get to use some common sense in
figuring these things out?
MR. WEEKS: That would be fine. Based on our analysis of the
properties, since we've had the discussion with Mr. Y ovanovich, or
since the public petition in June, I feel comfortable with that direction.
That's half the equation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, that essentially means that they
must complete the environmental analysis of all of the submissions,
right?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then you come us to and you say to
us, based upon the environmental analysis, these parcels don't make
sense to be sending lands; is that right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or they can even make that
determination themselves, is what I had said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think -- they can do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think so.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We still need you to change the
designation on the future land use map and the comprehensive plan.
Are you saying, Commissioner Fiala, that -- first of all, I think
we're getting a little -- the fact that one petitioner, Mr. Lester,
submitted a petition purporting to represent umpteen --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ten thousand.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- hundred property owners is what's, I
think, making this a little bit more difficult. That's group four.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rich, that isn't -- that isn't the
purpose to my -- he isn't even the purpose behind my motivation. My
motivation is that staff knows -- I feel staff has a good handle on most
of these things, but maybe they've been hogtied from being able to
make common sense decisions, and that's why I'm saying, could they
Page 277
___~._.,_..,.__,,,.~e_".._>.H~'''M_'<~_''___''.'__
"..,_",~_.....-......",.'<f .~
October 11, 2005
make these decisions on their own, seeing clearly if there's an
environmental study or even just a picture -- no study needed on that
one -- that they don't make any sense, then staff could come to us and
say, look, in this case it doesn't make any sense, so we need to change
this designation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And all we're asking, Commissioner, is
please let us. We've gone through the effort of getting our
environmental analysis on the other two clients that I represent.
Maybe staff says, Rich, I don't agree with you. I'd like to come to you
and show you the picture and have you say, I agree with staff or I
agree with you, Rich. That's all I'm asking for. We've already spent
the time and the effort to go through the process. We're not opening
up a huge can of worms. We're talking about 12 -- 12 property
owners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I think that's where we were when
we set up this rule, is if you could present us with data that would
refute the designation of the land, then we could change the
designation of the land.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chair, if I might.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEEKS: I'm going to backtrack and just recant what I said
earlier to Commissioner Fiala. I think it would be best that we not task
staff with making that decision.
This particular instance is very clear-cut, and that's what I was
thinking of when you asked the question, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
MR. WEEKS: But as I think about the other
properties that we have requests for, I think it would be better that we
not have to have that burden. There's obviously some interest on the
part of the commission, I'm hearing, I'm sensing, for circumstances
that are like this. But what about one that's a little bit fuzzy? And I
don't think staff would want to be in that position of splitting the hair.
Page 278
......-.........-..""-.-
October 11, 2005
Because once we've gone down the path, let's go all the way down the
path. Let us just bring all--let's don't split the baby. Let's go all the
way, and we'll bring all of the properties to you. I think that's the best
course.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So are you saying that your
recommendation written in the staff report has changed?
MR. WEEKS: In light of the direction that the commission
seems to be going, it seems like you want to partly agree with Mr.
Y ovanovich, and I think it really needs to be an all or a nothing. And I
think the safest approach, go all. Go with his position entirely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm sorry.
Commissioner Fiala, you made a motion; is it still on the floor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't -- she wasn't -- she was planning
to make a motion, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- I don't think she did, and it wasn't
seconded.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd like to make a motion
that we modify staffs recommendation to include Mr. Y ovanovich's
properties that have been submitted in a timely fashion, along with the
environmental studies, to be brought back to us for consideration with
the rest of the package. I don't know how else to word it, if that's
close enough or not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could we make it not sound like we're
doing it just for Mr. Yovanovich?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then remove his name.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, take his name out of it. And could
we just say, we'll review all the packages and review the staffs
recommendations concerning the packages, and then we'll make the
final decision?
Page 279
,'--'"
October 11, 2005
MR. SCHMITT: Simple recommendation would be by
assembled property instead of by parcel.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then that's my motion.
MR. SCHMITT: And the reason for that is I pulled David aside,
and I said, based on what Commissioner Fiala said, it would be too
subjective. And I think it's better, if there's subjectivity involved, that
we bring it back to the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the motion is to approve the
staff considering these on a per parcel basis -- no.
MR. SCHMITT: Per property owner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Per property basis, not a parcel basis.
MR. MUDD: Assembled property.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. And you'll bring back the
recommendations to us, and we'll make the final decision.
Okay. Is there a second?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning has
seconded.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala is opposed.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #10J
Page 280
October 11, 2005
RECOMMENDATION TO BE AUTHORIZED TO ADVERTISE
AND SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC HEARING AMENDING
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2001-75, AS AMENDED,
THE PUBLIC VEHICLE FOR HIRE ORDINANCE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 10J. It's a recommendation to be authorized -- excuse me. It's
a recommendation to be authorized to advertise and schedule for
public hearing amending for Collier County Ordinance Number
2001-75, as amended, the Public Vehicle for Hire Ordinance. And Ms.
Michelle Arnold, the director of code enforcement, will present.
MS. ARNOLD: Good evening. This item, as the county
manager indicated, is requesting authorization from the board that we
proceed with amending the Public Vehicle for Hire Ordinance.
There are several issues that we'd like to address in the
amendment of this ordinance, one is to address the taxi fares. And
there's been an analysis done, and we worked with the Public Vehicle
for Hire Committee to come up with a recommendation that takes into
effect the impacts that the increased gas prices have had on the
industry. So we would like to modify the ordinance to reflect that
Increase.
We're also requesting that we amend the ordinance to allow for
signage on certain charter vehicles, vans, more specifically. And there
was an item that was brought before you in the past for Alligator
Transportation, that they were requesting signage, and the board at
that particular time asked us to look back at it and respond to that
request. We're having to amend the ordinance to allow for that
additional signage on vans.
We're also looking at modifying the fining structure that is
currently in place so that it's consistent with what we currently have
for our citations. We have currently, for all other matters that we
enforce, a citation process that allows for $105 for citations as
Page 281
October 11, 2005
opposed to $25 that is indicated in the current ordinance.
We're also asking that the -- with the amendment that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have just one question, then
Commissioner Coletta has a question.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I am a little concerned, although I
understand there's not much you can do about it, about the fact that
you're eliminating the FBI background check because the FBI won't
cooperate with you, in fact, won't do the checks; is that essentially
true?
MS. ARNOLD: That's true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know because of my
communication earlier that I am concerned about certain types of
background checks, particularly with respect to sexual predators. And
you've replied that you do have the ability to check a Florida database.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But there is no national database that we
can check, to my knowledge, other than through the FBI.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we already know that a lot of those
people go from state to state. We've already found some from
Louisiana who are here in Florida.
Is there any way we can tighten up our screening procedures
along those lines?
And, secondly, if you can just answer, is there someone who is
responsible for checking the Florida database on sexual predators? I
know you have that capability, and that was the response that I got.
Page 282
October 11, 2005
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But is there someone who is designated
as responsible for doing that, and that is an absolute requirement --
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for every one of those people?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And we are doing that for not only sexual
predators, but all the offenses that are listed in the ordinance currently.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay.
MS. ARNOLD: And what I was going to suggest is, I could see
whether or not the sheriffs office would cooperate with us, that we
would provide them the names of the drivers and the company owners
and those types of things that we're currently doing background
checks, to see specifically if these are -- they have any history for
sexual predator. And -- but, I mean, that's something we can't require
them to do. They have that information, but we don't have access to
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The sheriffs office locally, has that
information on a national basis?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then let's request the sheriff to at least--
they don't have to provide the information to us. They can merely
take the license and say yes or no --
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- we've checked this person out, and we
think it's okay or it's not okay.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's ask the sheriff to do
that. Can we get a letter over to the sheriff to do that?
MS. ARNOLD: For specifically that offense?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Or any others that you don't think
you can adequately check for, but specifically for that one, because
Florida has had a substantial problem with that sort of thing recently,
Page 283
October 11, 2005
and I believe that we -- we should do whatever we can locally to try to
-- try to control it.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Couple of questions.
Well, I'll be honest with you. I have a problem with regulating
businesses. I can understand the concern over the sexual predators or
predators in general, especially with the clientele that some of these
vehicles for hire work with.
However -- I don't know. It's an issue that I'll work through
before we get to the vote, I'm sure. But could we possibly, down the
road, maybe a year from now when this comes back to us for
reconsideration or whatever, get some sort of report to find out what
has actually happened with these investigations? I'm not talking about
specific names. But in other words, the sheriffs department has seen
120 applications come through and --
MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- six of them -- I'd like to know
what kind of a real problem this is out there. And it would help for me
to get a better understanding of what's taking place.
MS. ARNOLD: And just for point of clarification, just for those
offenses that we were talking about originally? Because there are
other offenses that are noted in the ordinance that we pick up in our
searches. And we either -- we deny applications that are coming
through because they have been convicted of those noted offenses
within the time period the ordinance specifies. So I don't know if you
want a full report, seeing how many we've denied, or just for sexual
predators.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. How many denied, that
would be great. You know, you already -- there is a number of them
that you have denied?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
Page 284
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, basically that answered
my questions. It's a needed service.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. They screen out people.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question's been answered
through this discussion. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. We have a
motion on the floor to approve.
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. ARNOLD: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 12A, and
that's a notice of --
MS. FILSON: Eleven.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Eleven, public comments. Do we have
public comments?
MR. MUDD: Excuse me, 11.
MS. FILSON: Yes. I have two, Molly Reed. She'll be followed
Page 285
October 11, 2005
by Bob Krasowski.
MS. REED: Good evening. Are you tired yet?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're ready to go, midnight.
MS. REED: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Take your time.
MS. REED: I'm here on behalf of Friends of the Collier County
Museum. And I'm -- I don't usually have a written statement, but I do
in this case.
I wanted to start out by reminding everybody that this is a
community where I'm told 75 percent of the residents haven't even
lived here seven years, and so it's no surprise that the history of Collier
County doesn't carry much weight.
Nevertheless, of these people who are newly here, and will be
using the day they arrived here as their base line for what we are, their
children will come to call Naples and Collier County their personal
back home. We all hear it all the time, residents who say back home,
and that means someplace else besides here.
But for these children growing up and for their future in the
county, this will be back home. And they do care about our history
and what it was like in olden days, as well as what it looked like.
The proof of this is in the huge number of children who attend
the Old Florida Days every November at the museum.
We're fortunate to have a historic museum because 20 years ago
people thought we'd best try to save what we have. And saving what
we have is a concept worth pondering.
It was what we have that brings people here. It's what keeps
people here. But it's disappearing, and you're all aware of it, unless
we have the will to save it for the future.
The Haldeman house might well be one of the oldest houses in
South Florida, and certainly it's the oldest in Collier County; 1886. It
has no place else to go in Collier County except the museum grounds.
Page 286
October 11, 2005
The Friends of the Museum have $175,000 pledged to move it to
the museum. We've put other historic buildings on the site, and we've
never had the stipulation that we also had to fund the maintenance in
perpetuity, so I don't know why that's happening to us now.
Let's say the Smithsonian offers to give Collier County back the
Caloosa cat or the Marco cat, would we have to refuse it because we
couldn't pay in perpetuity to ensure it and maintain it forever?
It's not like the Friends of the Museum is asking for money or for
over $50 million for a water park or a zoo. We're not asking for
money. We just want your approval to put the house on the museum
grounds.
We've moved houses, tanks, a train engine, and other items, and
we've paid to restore them too, even if it took years to do it. We've
handled that.
Yes, eventually taxes are going to have to maintain the artifacts.
That's how public museums take care of what they have.
It's your call. We just want your permission. And the people,
young and old, in Collier County, need to know why you obj ect to its
being saved by our museum.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Molly, may I ask you, how
much longer does this house have before they'll destroy it?
MS. REED: Minutes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sometime--
MS. REED: On Wednesday, the city council gave permission
for the final plat, so the holdup is the house mover.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But once, once --
MS. REED: Once it has someplace to go -- otherwise, it ends up
on the beach as a, just a pile of sticks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Okay. Thank you. I would
like to discuss this with our -- my fellow commissioners and see if
there's some way we can accept this house before we lose this house.
Page 287
October 11, 2005
We'll never have it again. And then maybe the Friends could do some
fundraising -- you know, the Friends of the Museum can do some
fundraising to help to restore it.
MS. REED: We intend to restore it--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that.
MS. REED: -- no matter how long it takes. And one house we
put on the museum grounds took eight years. We have a little
fundraiser, put the money into some restoration. But eventually, of
course, the taxpayers are going to have to maintain it, because that's
how public museums take care of what they have.
But at this point, to get it there, put it there, and get it ready to be
enjoyed, that's our responsibility, and we've taken it, we accept it, and
we'll do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like us to see -- I'd like to see us
accept this donation to our museum system, and I'll put that on the
record. But I see Commissioner Halas wants to say something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I believe this is an issue for
the city, and I think the proper -- this house belongs in the city, and I
think the city ought to step up to it. And if they want to preserve it,
that's who needs to preserve it. I think this would be a great --
MS. REED: There's really nowhere in the city for it to go.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why? There must be.
MS. REED: Where it's going to be available to the public all the
time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, how about the Cambier Park;
they could put it in Cambier Park in one comer of it. To me, that
would be a great location, because people -- a lot of people go to
Cambier Park for concerts and all this other stuff. And that would be
a great location to put it, and the people could go there and really see
what's going -- you know, what Naples was like, and it stays in that
particular area.
Page 288
October 11, 2005
MS. REED: I don't know that there's room in Cambier Park. Do
you, Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know. It would be pretty
crowded. But Commissioner Halas's point is a good one. There are
city-owned properties. For example, the corner of Grand and Third
Street South. There's a park there that's not used at all. All it has is a
little bench, covered bench, and it's a full lot. They could put it right
there if they wish to do that. There are places they could --
MS. REED: I don't know that the -- to tell you the truth, the city
lacks the capacity to restore to museum quality a house of this age and
uniqueness. So I don't really feel that they'd be able to do that, and
then to staff it to have it
open to the public.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're taking on a lot of debt as it
IS. We're going to --
MS. REED: This is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're going to be taking on the zoo
property and all that, and I think that we're stretching ourselves a little
thin. I'd really like to see the city step up and save this house.
MS. REED: What do you anticipate that you would have to do
in the future if the Friends of the Museum are willing to bear all of it
to get it to the point that it can be open to the public? I don't
understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The one procedural issue that we have
here is that before the commissioners obligate any funds for doing
something, it would have to be properly advertised.
MS. REED: We're not asking for funds. We just want
permission to put it on the museum grounds. We will -- we have the
money to move it. We will raise the money to restore it. Once it's
restored and open to the public, well, then, yes, to sweep the floor and,
perhaps, wax the old wood that's in it once a year, the taxpayer will
bear that cost, just as they do for the other things that are at the
Page 289
"._"n._'_""'_~"·_«"
October 11, 2005
museum.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, I have to tell you that I have
a problem personally, and that's because I got involved in trying to
preserve the Wilkinson house in the City of Naples, and a lot of
people who contributed to that effort, both money and time, were
greatly disappointed, and it doesn't work out well, you know that --
MS. REED: I recall that issue real well. Well, the issue was --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I'm -- I am affected by that
experience, so I have to share that with you, and I'm not anxious to
repeat it. But I'll leave this decision up to my fellow commissioners.
MS. REED: Can I just recall here though that the issue with the
Wilkinson house was whether or not the City of Naples should get
into the real estate business, and it turned out to be something that left
a sour note with everyone.
We're not asking you to get into the real estate business. The
house has been donated to the Friends of the Museum. We have the
money to move it. We have the money to put it on the museum
grounds. We will assume the responsibility for refurbishing it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Will the City of Naples be interested in
moving it to --
MS. REED: They have not expressed any interest --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to the Naples --
MS. REED: -- in that house at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Preserve?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then--
THE COURT REPORTER: I can only get one person at a time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to talk one at a time, okay?
MS. REED: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's some more property at Naples
Preserve, which is 9 or 10 acres. If the city had any interest in historic
preservation, they could locate that house there, and it would be far
easier to do it there, and it would be more accessible to the public if
Page 290
October 11, 2005
they did it there than if you tried to put it on our relatively small
museum grounds here.
Commissioner Coletta, you don't want to talk or --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think we pretty well
covered it. I've been involved with the museum and a lot of the
projects in the past, however, I couldn't get my arms around this one
either. We've assume so much responsibility in the past, and we've
just taken on the Naples Museum that we're going to be doing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You mean the train depot.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, there's got to be a
point where we've got to say, you know, we can't do it. And I do
agree with two other commissioners here, the City of Naples, if this
was important enough for the residents of Naples, they should have
stepped forward a lot earlier and made a commitment, and they didn't.
They just -- they stood by and they let things take their own pace,
and now that they're down to the last minute, it's supposed to be the
county that's going to bail the whole thing out.
I don't feel comfortable with it, I really don't. I'm sorry. I admire
the fact that she's stayed here for so long, and you're very dedicated to
what you're doing. And you probably see this as the last chance to be
able to save this house. But I wish I could say I support you on it, but I
don't.
MS. REED: The -- in terms of the Naples Preserve, that was
acquired through grants, and those would prohibit putting a house on
it. You can't alter that, so that's a problem with that piece of property.
But -- and I can appreciate what you're saying; however, having
grown up in the City of Naples and now living in the county, I feel
that I'm part of the whole, as I think most people do. I don't -- I don't
know that -- the city is, after all, in the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right, and I support the
new Marco museum they're trying to get on the grounds. I told them
I'd help in any way that I could. I was a very big supporter for the
Page 291
October 11, 2005
Naples Depot. But there's limits to what you do, and you've got to put
your resources where they're going to do the most good. And I know
you don't agree with me on it, but--
MS. REED: Well, I just want to know what you anticipate you
would have to pay. What would this cost for an old house like this?
Why is this --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would cost--
MS. REED: -- going to cost you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- an absolute fortune to keep
one of these things maintained. I know what they've been through
with the Everglades Laundry Room down there, they turned it into a
museum, and the cost it went through to get it there, and it cost a lot of
maintenance to keep it going forever.
These buildings were built out of wood. They were built --
they're usually termite infested. There's a lot of problems that come
with them. After they're restored, they require a lot of work over the
years just to keep them in place. It's a tremendous responsibility to
take on. And I'm glad that the museum -- Friends of the Museum are
willing to make that commitment.
But somewheres along the line, we would have to be biting the
bullet. And then when the people come back and they say, why can't
you take care of what you've got? Now you're trying to get something
else.
I remember it was years before we came up with the money to fix
the roof of one of the dwellings we have over on the museum now.
They had leaks coming through the roof. It was really bad.
I mean, for the lack of 20, $30,000, it wasn't getting done. This
was back about four or five years ago. Finally we came forward, we
got the money. But meanwhile, there was all sorts of damage was
done.
We've got Roberts Ranch in Immokalee. I've been begging for
the money for the restoration on that. This commission has made the
Page 292
...".þ,=......._.......- p! ~<"""'...·r
October 11, 2005
commitment that they would restore it. How many years ago was
that? About four or five years ago. And we're so far behind in doing
it, so far behind in cash for it that we're not going to ever get there to
the point where -- with the two entities. So I mean, I'm just trying to
draw some comparisons across the line.
MS. REED: Well, and that comparison--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've heard the argument.
We've -- this is not a debate. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to withdraw my
support, but we must move on on the agenda. And I agree that
Commissioner Coletta talks the most.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. I appreciate your
coming in to talk with us.
MS. FILSON: Your final public comment is Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello. I have -- Commissioners, good
evening, Bob Krasowski, for the record. I have two comments, two
issues I'd like to address with you, but first I might suggest that that
house -- that Ms. Reed get in touch with the Fleischmann family.
I've been here for 25 years. And in the past, they've been very
generous in their donations of land and participation of various
programs that have been a contribution to this community, and they
might be willing to give a little piece of that property that they're
selling over there by the Zoo. That house would make a nice
entranceway to that green area that will be around the zoo, next to the
zoo. But it's just a crazy idea.
The two issues I'd like to speak to you about briefly tonight are
two things that pertain to me personally, okay. The one -- and I'm
trying to jump in at the appropriate place with the land development
code/growth management cycle, and I thought it was sometime in
October. Maybe it's the next meeting that you're going to address the
Page 293
October 11, 2005
new cycle, we're going to start that out.
I have a property that I have had for about 19 years. And when I
purchased it, it was before the new rules as far as what could be done
with that property, and I would like the land development code and
growth management process to evaluate the possibility of me being
allowed to split that property, whereas now, since 1992, people
haven't been allowed to split those properties, but they've bought the
property -- anyone who's bought property similar to mine since then
would have bought them under the new rules. I bought them under the
old rules, but I'll come back to that at a later date when the cycle -- I
think it's probably next meeting. I expected it to happen this meeting.
Another thing that I wanted to speak with you about was the
availability of affordable housing in Collier County, and I have a
friend that I was talking to, and he has rental units, and apparently
rental units are value increases, they're taxable value increases in free
floats along with the value of property in general.
Well, you have many programs where you're trying to provide or
to secure affordable housing for people. My suggestion would be that
rental units at -- qualified to a program that you would design, be
allowed to maintain like the 3 percent increase that everybody else
gets, holding down the taxes on their property, and then that way, if
the landlord agrees to a certain formula, that that rental unit would
stay available as a rental unit to working class people in Collier
County .
And, of course, those would be the more affordable rental units.
And as of now, as these properties increase in value, the people living
there, the rents have to go up, and they're pushed out and they can't
live there any longer. And I think you could find there's quite a few
rentals here.
And also, I would suggest that as part of the affordable housing
program that you're working on, that we look at apartment buildings
or condominiums as we call them here, and you could put some kind
Page 294
October 11, 2005
of rent control or whatever on them -- requirements.
But when people move here to work for the county, the school
district or whatever, if they're young people, they don't have families,
and people -- not everybody is entitled when they move here to a
house and property. I mean, some people could live in a
condominium or an apartment, and it would be perfectly adequate as
they enter -- enter the marketplace on housing.
You know, I'd like you to get me a house in Port Royal on the
beach, you know, but the market forces just don't allow for that. And I
think rather than monkeying with the free market, you know, capitalist
economy we have with all this special preference to some people over
others in regards to providing houses and subsidizing housing, we
should look at other solutions.
But that's just the comments I have. Thanks for your attention to
my comments, and I'll see you later.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
County Attorney?
Item #12A
NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT
EXECUTIVE SESSION. REGARDING SETTLEMENT
NEGOTIATIONS AND/OR STRATEGY RELATED TO
LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING CASE OF
COLLIER COUNTY V. UNITED ENGINEERING
CORPORATION, CASE NO. 04-3363-CA, PENDING IN THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, NAPLES, FLORIDA - SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER
25~ 2005 BCC MEETING AT LUNCH HOUR
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. This is agenda item 12A. And I'm
just bringing to your attention notice of county attorney intent to bring
Page 295
October 11, 2005
back at your October 25th meeting, to have a closed session relating to
settlement negotiations and strategy related to expenditures in the case
of Collier County versus United Engineering Corporation, UEC, case
number 04-3363-CA.
I would look forward at any time that you set in conjunction with
the county manager relating to the meeting for a closed session.
Attending would be Board of County Commissioners; County
Attorney, David Weigel; Chief Assistant County Attorney, Mike
Pettit; Paul Olum (phonetic), Esquire, of Carlton Fields, and James V.
Mudd.
So this is just the notice pursuant to the sunshine law, and that's
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And when are you suggesting this,
David?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it would be at the next board meeting. If
you would want to have like a luncheon time to go through it for 15 or
20 minutes, that would be great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Why don't we set it for next
meeting at lunch. Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It won't take the entire lunch period,
right?
MR. WEIGEL: No, absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Because we're going
to shoot some commissioners that day.
MS. FILSON: All of you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Mudd?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 296
October 11, 2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there's one item that I've asked Leo
to talk to the board about. Mr. Ochs did an investigation of sunshine
law issues with the productivity committee on a certain session, and
he's basically given those -- those results to each one of the
commissioners, and you've received those. And I've got copies in case
you don't have them.
But I believe Leo needs at least some guides -- or we need some
guidance, or you need to give some guidance to your committee on
one particular item. It has to do -- recommendation, and it's paragraph
recommendation number three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you just put it on the overhead
there.
MR. MUDD: Sure, yes, sir. And I'll give each Commissioner --
it's on the second page, it's number three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, recommendation number three has
to do with some options regarding the evaluation and nomination of
candidates for memberships to fill vacancies on your productivity
committee.
Staff has outlined four different options that you may wish to
consider, ranging from the first being the status quo, which is a
process where your productivity committee recommends a single
nominee for each vacancy that you have to fill on the committee.
The second option that we've developed for your consideration is
for the productivity -- to instead of providing a single candidate, is,
perhaps, provide a list -- an unranked list of the top three nominees,
and then the board could choose among those three to fill an
individual vacancy.
A third option may be for the board to provide a more -- a
specific set of qualifications, a matrix, if you will, to the productivity
committee to provide them some specific guidance on the expertise or
qualifications or, perhaps, even membership and specific
Page 297
_.....~~"--_."--_.".-
October 11, 2005
organizations that you would like represented on the committee.
And then the final recommendation would be for the board
simply to make those appointments without recommendations from
your productivity committee, which would be very similar to the
current ordinance for appointments to advisory boards as it relates to
your four quasijudicial committees. You do not accept
recommendations from those committees. You make those
appointments yourself.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I prefer the last one, that
we deal with the appointments without any recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I do, too. The one thing that
makes me a little bit nervous is, just like the last time, I would have
chosen that man had nobody else been recommended or had 20 people
been recommended. But to -- then I'm worried, will somebody say,
well, you've chosen somebody that's retired, or ifhe isn't a member of
the chamber or if he isn't a working person, then you've chosen wrong.
And I don't want to be accused of anything. I want to be able to
select somebody just because I think they're a highly responsible
member who can give -- who can give qualified and excellent input on
that committee, which I believe this man will do just because of his
qualifications. Didn't make any difference what anybody
recommended, I would have chosen him anyway.
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have to go with bullet point
number two. I think the productivity committee does a great service
in the respect that they have -- they draw from a great source of
people. And when they sit down to analyze particular problems that
we have here in the county, they draw upon all past experiences.
And I really think that the best thing to do is, they can go through
Page 298
___...""m"_ ""_">___"""_~'<_"_""~'_'"_ .....
October 11, 2005
a process and not -- and not rank them, just give us a list of names and
say that they all fit the category and let us figure out who we should
pick.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'm going to weigh in on this one,
too. Yeah, I think -- I think there's something we have to recognize
here and -- so that we don't over react.
There were a lot of false allegations made in the study in the
document we received.
Absolutely false, not supported by any facts whatsoever. And
that disturbs me because it makes me believe that there is a hidden
agenda. And I'm not going to be intimidated by this.
If I'm going to accuse somebody of doing something, I'm going
to make sure I've got my facts right. I am not going to sign something
accusing a committee or a chairman of a committee of a whole long
list of infractions unless I'm sure that that's actually what happened.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the people who prepared that report
and sent that letter had the tapes, or the transcripts, minutes, whatever
they had, available just like we did. They could have reviewed it just
as thoroughly as we did. And we found that most of their allegations
were totally false.
Now, I don't want to penalize a productivity committee because
somebody gave us a false report and somebody is angry because we
didn't appoint the person they wanted us to appoint.
And I would have to go with number two also. I'm not going to
throwaway the productivity committee's recommendations. I mean,
they're a valued committee. They are people who work harder than
any other committee I know of, except maybe the CCPC, and they are
people with excellent qualifications from the business community.
And I can understand why we might not want one -- just one
nominee for each vacancy. We might want to choose. But for
goodness sakes, let them screen people for us and nominate the three
Page 299
--_.._~---...__._..^_..~--
--_....".~..,.
October 11, 2005
top people, because remember, I would doubt seriously if more than
one or two of the commissioners on this board really know what
proj ects they're working on right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And without knowing what projects
they're working on, you don't know what skills they need. You have
to depend upon them to tell you what skills they need to do the jobs
that we've asked them to do.
So I would -- I would ask you to continue to depend upon these
people. They've done a good job for us.
And please remember that some of the comments in this report
and the allegations in this report were taken directly from people who
did not like the recommendations of the productivity committee on
some of their previous assignments, and that is not the right way, in
my mind, to effect change.
And I would -- I would encourage the commissioners to continue
to rely on these people. They do a good job. They give us good
reports. They've been invaluable.
If you don't want to let them have the authority to make a single
nomination, require that they make three of them, and then we can
choose the ones that we think are best. But at the very minimum, they
should be able to specify what skills they need on their productivity
committee to do the job.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, are you going to
make a motion for bullet point number two of section three?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would. I would make a motion for
number two.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Suppose there's only one
or two applicants?
Page 300
'---'-~~"--
" "....-.'''--'''..-...'.-"
October 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, whatever they - if they don't have
more than those, they'll just give us --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if there's one applicant,
they can recommend that this person doesn't meet the standards as far
as they're concerned?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Absolutely, yeah. And then we can
make the final determination.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other comments or
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, 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: Okay. It passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
Okay. Any--
MR. MUDD: That's all -- that's all we -- that's the only decision
that needed to be done in this particular report. It was out there -- it
was out there hanging, and I believe we needed to have some closure
on it. And that was the only one that was of a contentious issue, and
the county attorney will talk with the folks about the sunshine law just
to give them a refresher.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Leo, you did a wonderful job with
this review.
Page 301
,_"._,~.__,q.'~.n.,.~. ....."-.-......-....-.,...--,-..-
.... .~~-~-_.",...,_.. »
---._"...._..,...._~-
October 11, 2005
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It really was a good investigation and
sound conclusions, and fair and balanced, I think. So it should give
anybody who reads this some assurance that we are interested in
having people who represent our community.
Commissioners, start with Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One question. The elevator that
we have in this building, many problems with it. I think one person
was hurt. Do we have any anticipation when these are going to be
repaired?
MR. MUDD: Well, we're repairing one right now, and I know
Skip wants to do an overhaul. The problem we've got is the freight
side of the house. Again, this was two elevators on a building that was
what, four or five stories, and they've added stories to it.
So he's working on it. He's trying to give me a plan on how we
want to get it done. We might have to put another elevator shaft on
the outside of the building, on the outside side of the house, but we're
doing one -- we're having constant problems with the elevator. It's not
., .
-- It s Just not --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's old. It needs to be replaced.
MR. MUDD: And so we've got to work on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hey, the stairs are great for physical--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hey, it's my turn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Geez, you guys have talked all
day. Now, I'm only taking a few minutes here, so just give me time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's take it and get on with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- you know, in
the past I brought up about meeting every other week, or every week,
and I'm not going to do that.
But Commissioner Coy Ie, I thought, brought up a good idea,
after thinking about it a few years, about having a workshop on the
Page 302
"~..._._~,__"'d'___
October 11, 2005
agenda items on the consent and number 10, and any -- we probably
take care of proclamations and whatever. But I'm not -- I feel that
that's the answer to our problem.
I think that we have a lot that we're doing here for the citizens. I
think we need to take our time and really spend some time on it, get
all the questions answered on the consent agenda, come back on the
other meeting and say, you know, boom, we're going to approve these
all at ones.
But I'm not going to bring it back unless there's a majority of the
commissioners willing to discuss that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would be willing to discuss it. I
know we've talked about it before -- not about that particular thing, but
about the length of these meetings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'll tell you, I -- there are some
advantages and some disadvantages to doing that, and it would only
work if we're willing to do -- make some changes in the way we do
things.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the timer didn't work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it didn't work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we can do some things like setting
limits on how long we're going to debate something, as an example. If
we could get commissioners to agree that, look, we're not going to
spend an hour just kicking this thing around.
And -- but that's going to mean somebody gets cut off
somewhere along the line. And I don't have a problem doing that if
you all agree with that, but I'm not going to get in a fight with you
about, you know, whether or not you can talk.
But let's discuss your specific issue, and I'll tell you what some of
my concerns are with doing it. You know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, real quick. I
mean, if you want to bring it back, fine. If you don't, then let's just
Page 303
October 11, 2005
move it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think it's worth talking about.
Anything we can do to make things more efficient for us and the
public, is worth considering.
And so I would be willing to talk about it again and at least kick
around the ideas, because we can go on for a long time tonight talking
about this thing, and I don't think anybody wants to do that right now.
But I would be willing to bring it back and talk about it sometime.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, Commissioner -- who was
first? Commissioner Coletta -- Halas, Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that if we look at the big
picture, there's times when a petitioner will get up and use the floor for
an hour or an hour and a half in his presentation, and I think that there
should be a time limit. I think they can be more efficient in regards to
appreciating the situation, because we end up only telling the citizens
they have three minutes for discussion on a particular item, but yet a
petitioner may end up with an hour, hour and a half, and I think there
should be a limit on that.
As far as the consent agenda, I think that we do a good job the
way we do. If there's questions about it, we immediately alert the
county manager that we want to have this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, do you want me to
bring it back or not? That was the only question that I have.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if I can only give one
word, then it would be no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We don't have a majority -- well,
I guess we do. Three -- if you and I and Commissioner Fiala agree,
Page 304
~_~>,_.,_"...,.",,"__~"'n".._""~
October 11, 2005
we can bring it back and talk about it sometime.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll put it on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Anything more?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm going to put one last plug
for Haldeman house. If it doesn't cost us any money -- and I realize --
Bob Krasowski made a good suggestion, maybe just move it over to
the Fleischmann property at least temporarily. You know, you just
hate to see it demolished without giving it some more thought.
I realize the city doesn't seem to want to preserve it or save it. If
the Friends of the Museum -- Collier County Friends of the Museum
have gotten the money to move it and five months later we would be
kicking ourselves because we didn't take that donation. Just like with
the painted house, you can never go back and find that painted house
again.
And I would like us to see if we couldn't work something out,
maybe I could just talk to somebody within our county to see if there
was some way we could at least accept the donation temporarily. And
if we don't want it, well, you know, at least we've had some time to
think it through rather than just say no. Just putting that on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any more?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to talk a little bit about
affordable housing. I'm not going to go into it now. I just want to tell
you that one of these days soon I want to present to you what my
committee is doing on gap housing. You're going to be thrilled,
because it's going to answer some of our needs. And without
belaboring it longer, I'll try and schedule it at a short meeting with Mr.
Mudd.
We're about ready to announce it to the public, but I first want to
announce it to you guys.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why don't we schedule a workshop
Page 305
October 11, 2005
then pretty quickly on that?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We can -- there's an opening now that the
sheriff doesn't need to reschedule his in November, so there's a day
that's open. We could put it right in there, Sue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What day?
MR. MUDD: Well, I think it was November 6 or something like
that.
MS. FILSON: Let me see if I have it here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, the 6th is a Sunday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would be nice if you did it a little
earlier than that, but nevertheless.
MS. FILSON: Oh, he has the calendar. I gave it to him.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. We're going to try to get it on
the LDC --
MR. MUDD: The 8th.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: --and GMP for January.
MS. FILSON: November? November 8th. I think we're
rescheduling the sheriff until December 6th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a little late, but if it could be done
earlier. I mean, if she's planning on going public with it pretty
quickly, we need to get it -- we need to get it before the board, because
the advisory committee shouldn't be going public with stuff that hasn't
been screened by the board.
MS. FILSON: We don't have any--
MR. MUDD: What advisory board?
MS. FILSON: -- dates.
MR. MUDD: It's not an advisory board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It isn't an advisory -- it's my own
committee, but I want to talk to you guys about it first before -- you
know, I feel I owe you that much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, are they making recommendations
that Collier County should be doing something?
Page 306
".~"-,,,,,-_.---< ,
,__~",_",_"""_""_",,,^,,~_,,",__,_,,__,,w>,,.
October 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, they're going to be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we need to hear about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think so, too.
MR. MUDD: We'll get it scheduled as fast as we can.
MS. FILSON: Do you want it on the agenda or workshop?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Workshop, or if it can be covered on an
agenda in a short period of time and we've got time on an agenda, we
can do that. But I don't see that happening this next time.
MR. MUDD: We're into November 15th. This next meeting's
going to last a day and a half for sure because we've got so many land
use items.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I just wanted to invite
you, if you can get it into your schedule, on Thursday the 13th, we're
going to be having a meeting on the -- with Florida Department of
Transportation and a number of the environmental members of the
community on the Everglades 1-75 interchange. That meeting there is
for the public to bring them up to speed where we are and to try to
enlist their support. And I hope that you could make it, and I invite
anyone out there that can fit it into their schedule to please attend.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What time, what place?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seven o'clock.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seven p.m.?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seven p.m. in the evening, that's
correct, at the agriculture extension building down by the fairgrounds.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. It was brought to my
attention by the county attorney that there may be a possibility for this
house, Haldeman house, to be placed maybe in Lowdermilk Park, that
there's a section over there that they could put that, and it would be
very close to the beach.
So I think that when we look at this -- I really think that the city
Page 307
October 11, 2005
really should look at this, and they should do everything in their
means to try to address this issue since it is something that belongs to
the City of Naples.
Secondly, when you're talking about your affordable housing,
have you been talk -- have you been giving it any thought in regards to
community land trust?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. There's a great difference, and
I won't go into it much. I realize the hour is late.
But we've talked about affordable housing. And right now
everybody that comes up, whether they be from Habitat for Humanity
or from the public school system says, we need affordable housing,
but there's a great difference between them.
The segment that, like Habitat, for instance, serves, they cannot
serve the teachers and sheriffs office and so forth, because they don't
qualify for it.
There has been a suggestion that we combine gap housing into
affordable housing, and I have said, absolutely not. There must be a
distinction between the two, because gap housing gets no dollars. It
doesn't get any dollars from the government, from the state, from the
federal government. It's a way of purchasing a house. It's a price
range, like from 175,000 to 290,000.
And we're going to try and restrict that -- that housing to those
working people, those professional people who can get a loan. We're
going to try and help them to get that loan. But they're not going to be
__ they're -- you know, if they can afford a 350,000 and they want to
buy a 290,000, fine.
It's rather innovative. It's very free market. And as far as public
land trusts or Florida -- you know, any dollars coming in, there might
be some help out there which we're investigating now as far as help
when they're purchasing the property with the banking consortium and
with the impact fees. But other than that, no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My thought was, we had
Page 308
_~",__,"._.___n._._.__.>,.,,·.,,_,.···._·~·o~.'_>_
October 11, 2005
this Bembridge PUD that was before us, and the county owns that
land. So I think this would be a great opportunity for us to look at --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- a community land trust. The
county owns the land, and we have somebody that builds the homes
there, and then we've got control of the price of -- basically the price
of the homes, and the land will basically stay fairly neutral.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excellent idea.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just what we're going for.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, okay. That's one of the ideas
that I've been having in my mind here, and I've passed it to County
Manager Mudd. And so we're looking at that aspect of addressing
affordable housing for people that want to work here in the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I know that I got voted down
with inclusionary zoning, not by you, of course. We would have had
affordable housing, you know, being built now for the last three years.
But there could be a way to have this gap housing included in
different developments.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we're working on that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's it. I don't have anything,
so we're adjourned.
(The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.)
***** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: * * * * *
Item #16Al
Page 309
.___.__._ _·._'m___.·_.,_··~___·,__m'..~_'_
October 11, 2005
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
TOLLGATE BUSINESS CENTER - W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR SERAFINA AT TIBURON - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR BRYNWOOD PRESERVE - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR SABAL BAY COMMERCIAL, PHASE ONE -
W /STIPULA TIONS
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR SANTA ROSA AT OLDE CYPRESS - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR NAPLES LAKES, PHASES 1,2,3, AND 7 -
W /STIPULA TIONS
Item #16A7
Page 310
-,,---"~-.-'_.
October 11, 2005
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR NORTH NAPLES MEDICAL PARK- W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR PALOMINO VILLAGE - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR SOUTHWEST PROFESSIONAL HEALTH PARK -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16AI0
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR WHITE LAKE CORPORATE PARK PHASE I -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16Al1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR WHITE LAKE CORPORATE PARK, PHASE III -
W /STIPULA TIONS
Item #16A12
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR WHITTENBERG VILLAS - W/STIPULATIONS
Page 311
.-.,"._,._"~-
October 11, 2005
Item #16A13
REVISED TEN YEAR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
COOPERATIVE GRANT AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING
HABITAT RESTORATION ON CONSERVATION COLLIER
PROPERTIES TO NOT EXCEED $250,000 OVER A TEN-YEAR
PERIOD
Item #16A14
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR OLDE CYPRESS~ UNIT TWO - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A15
FINAL PLAT OF TWIN EAGLES, PHASE TWO, APPROVAL OF
THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A16
SUBMERGED LAND AQUACULTURE LEASE FROM THE
STATE OF FLORIDA FOR TWO 2-ACRE PLOTS FOR
AQUACULTURE RESEARCH WITH FLORIDA GULF COAST
UNIVERSITY - FOR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF IMPROVED TECHNIQUES AND NEW
PRODUCTS COMPATIBLE TO THIS AREA
Item #16A17
Page 312
.____"'._0. - -' .~""'-""'"'--"~"-'-". ~,.-,.._"",.--,..._._~,.,_._-,,,,--- ...
October 11, 2005
RESOLUTION 2005-344: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF SERAFINA AT TIBURON. THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A18
RESOLUTION 2005-345: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF TIBURON BOULEVARD EAST
EXTENSION. THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED -
W/RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A19
CARNIVAL PERMIT CP-2005-05: CARNY-2005-AR-8413
GRANTING ANNIE ALVAREZ, ATHLETIC SPECIAL EVENTS
SUPERVISOR, COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT, TO CONDUCT THE ANNUAL FALL FEST
CARNIVAL ON OCTOBER 20, 21, 22 AND 23, 2005, AT THE
EAGLES LAKES COMMUNITY PARK LOCATED AT 11565
T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST
Item #16A20 - Moved to Item #10K
Item #16A21 - Moved to Item #10L
Item #16Bl
Page 313
October 11, 2005
RESOLUTION 2005-346: TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO
COLLIER COUNTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE. ESTIMATED
FISCAL IMPACT: $27.00 TO RECORD QUIT CLAIM DEED
Item #16B2 - Continued to October 25,2005 BCC Meeting
WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT $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 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B3
SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF TEN (10) ABOVE-GROUND
PERMANENT TRAFFIC COUNT STATIONS FROM SOUTH
ATLANTIC TRAFFIC, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000.00-
TO MEASURE REAL TIME AND HISTORIC TRAFFIC
DEMAND ON THE COUNTY'S ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR
ROADWAYS
Item #16B4
EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL NO. 130 REQUIRED FROM
COLONNADE ON SANTA BARBARA, LLC FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD (PROJECT NO. 62081 ). ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT: $525,781.50 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
Page 314
October 11, 2005
SUMMARY
Item #16B5
SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF "CARTEGRAPH
VERSATOOLS" COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF A RIGHT-A-WAY DATABASE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION. FISCAL IMPACT: $30,000.00-
TO ACCURATELY COLLECT PROJECT AND PARCEL COSTS,
STREAMLINE LEGAL INSTRUMENTS AND PROVIDE
ACCESS TO RIGHT-OF-WAY DATA VIA GIS
Item #16B6
RESOLUTION 2005-347: LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM
AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY WOULD
BE REIMBURSED UP TO $500,000 OF THE TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST OF $642,500 FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION OF
SIDEWALKS VARIOUS LOCATIONS AND APPROVAL OF
FUTURE FISCAL YEAR ANNUAL COSTS OF SIDEWALK
MAINTENANCE
Item #16B7
BID #05-3780R TO AGTRONIX AND CONTEMPORARY
CONTROLS & COMMUNICATIONS, INC. TO MULTIPLE
VENDORS ON A CATEGORY BASIS. ANNUAL
EXPENDITURES ARE ESTIMATED TO BE $250,000 - TO
PROCURE THE NECESSARY MOTOROLA SUPPLIES AND
Page 315
"., """,-",-"";-,,,-,_.~.~....,.. , ,."
October 11, 2005
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR COUNTY'S
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Item #16Cl
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSENT AGREEMENT AND ASSOCIATED
MEMORANDUM WITH FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COMP ANY PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF RAW
WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS AND RELATED FACILITIES,
WITHIN FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY POWER-LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT TO THE VICINITY OF
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD FOR THE SOUTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT REVERSE
OSMOSIS WELLFIELD EXPANSION TO 20-MGD, AT A COST
NOT TO EXCEED $35.50, PROJECT NUMBER 708921 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C2
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY FOR THE COUNTY
TO PROVIDE TRASH COLLECTION SERVICES IN THE CITY -
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C3
WORK ORDER #PSI-FT-05-04, TO PSI, INC. UNDER
CONTRACT NO. 03-3427 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING,
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION SERVICES FOR
COLLIER COUNTY TO COMPLETE A RISK MANAGEMENT
ASSESSMENT AT THE NAPLES RECYCLING CENTER
Page 316
----.."...-..".-~...-.,.,_._'''---
._.,---_.,....""_.....~_. _.~
October 11, 2005
LOCATED ON THE FORMER LANDFILL AT THE NAPLES
AIRPORT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $97,957.50,
PROJECT #59003 - TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY INVOLVED WITH THE
RESTORATION OF A FORMER COUNTY OPERATED
LANDFILL
Item #16Dl
CONVEYANCE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT TO SPRINT-
FLORIDA, INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
TELECOMMUNICATION LINES AT NORTH COLLIER
REGIONAL PARK ON LIVINGSTON ROAD AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $27.00 FOR RECORDING - PROJECT #80602
Item #16D2
ESTABLISH A SEP ARA TE COLLIER COUNTY UNIVERSITY
EXTENSION TRUST FUND FOR THE ACCEPTANCE AND
MANAGEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL
DONATED FUNDS; EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM GENERATED
FUNDS; AND EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
UNIVERSITY EXTENSION CENTER - TO PROPERLY
ACCOUNT FOR FUNDS DONATED TO AND EXPENDED FOR
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING
Item #16D3
SAFE HAVENS: SUPERVISED VISITATION AND SAFE
EXCHANGE GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $125,000 BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 3 17
<..._""._-~...~._"'".,
October 11, 2005
AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE GRANT ACCEPTANCE
DOCUMENT, INITIAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS PAGES AND
APPROVE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16El
AWARD RFP NO. 05-3868 INTERNET -BASED SOLUTION FOR
PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM TO SUN TRUST BANK - TO
EXPEDITE SMALL PURCHASES IN THE MOST COST
EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT MANNER POSSIBLE;
AUTHORIZING SINGLE TRANSACTION LIMIT TO $1000 AND
MAXIMUM MONTHLY SPENDING LIMIT TO $1 O~OOO
Item #16E2
CONTRACT #05-3852, DESIGN AND RELATED SERVICES
FOR THE SOUTH REGIONAL LIBRARY, TO SCHENKEL
SHULTZ ARCHITECTURE, INC. TO DESIGN THE SOUTH
REGIONAL LIBRARY, PROJECT 54003, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$623,950 - AT THE COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY WITHIN
LELY RESORT ON LELY CULTURAL PARKWAY
Item #16E3
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 26, 2005
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 23~ 2005
Page 318
""_~,_.,.~"_,"."~.'_,n_'.".~__._,_.~,,...,·,·"'''·_"''"''_"_
" ",.,_..._~_M'~ ...,.'- 'r
-""-~~~-
October 11, 2005
Item #16Fl
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF AN EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT APPLICATION FOR A MATCHING (75/25)
GRANT OFFERED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IN THE AMOUNT
$87,000. - FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING A PUBLIC
OUTREACH MITIGATION PROGRAM
Item # 16F2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE &
RESCUE DISTRICT FOR THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT
FOR A NEW FIRE ENGINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,900. -
DUE TO GROWTH THEY HAVE PURCHASED A NEW FIRE
ENGINE
Item #16F3
CONTRACT #05-3883 "PROFESSIONAL SATE LOBBYIST
SERVICES" WITH THE CLOSURE GROUP, INC., (J. KEITH
ARNOLD AND ASSOCIATES) IN THE AMOUNT OF $66,000
ANNUALLY - TO ENGAGE A STATE LOBBYING FIRM TO
PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO
BENEFIT COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING THE FRIENDS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
MUSEUM WINE TASTING GALA ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER
Page 319
_ ~.___._._._",_,,__...___"."N'_'
October 11,2005
27,2005 AT THE FRESH MARKET; $25.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT
4129 TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA; TO BENEFIT THE
MUSEUM'S OLD FLORIDA FESTIVAL & CHILDREN'S
MUSEUM EXPRESS
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER COYLE'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT TO
ATTEND THE NAACP FREEDOM FUND BANQUET AND
SILENT AUCTION ON OCTOBER 15,2005 AT THE ELKS
LODGE; $55 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COYLE'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 3950 RADIO ROAD,
NAPLES., FLORIDA
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR PAYMENT TO
ATTEND THE NAACP FREEDOM FUND BANQUET AND
SILENT AUCTION ON OCTOBER 15,2005 AT THE ELKS
LODGE; $55 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS'
TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 3950 RADIO ROAD,
NAPLES., FLORIDA
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 320
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
. October 11,2005
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1. Port of the Islands Community Improvement District: Minutes of
February 18,2005; Minutes of April 29, 2005; Agenda of April 29,2005;
Minutes of May 27, 2005; Agenda of May 27,2005; Minutes of June 24,
2005; Agenda of June 24, 2005; Proposed Operating and Debt Service
Budget Fiscal Year 2006; Minutes of July 22,2005; and Agenda of July
22,2005.
2. North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District: Resolution 05-034
Adopting the Final Levy of Ad Valorem Taxes and Impact Fees for Fiscal
Year 2005 -2006; Resolution 05-035 Adopting the Final Budgets for the
Fiscal Year 2005 - 2006; and Operating, Impact Fee, Inspection Fee, and
Final Budgets 2005 - 2006.
3. South Florida Water Management District: Resolution 2005-968
Adopting the Final Budget and Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2005 - 06.
4. Heritage Greens Community Development District: Fiscal Year 2006
Notice of Public Meeting Schedule; Minutes of February 14,2005;
Agenda of February 14, 2005; and Resolution 2005-3 Canvassing and
Certifying the Results of the Landowners Election of Supervisors.
5. Cedar Hammock Community Development District: Minutes of June 13,
2005; Agenda of June 13,2005; Minutes of July 11,2005; Agenda of
July 11,2005; and Proposed Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2006.
,
6. East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District: Budget of 2005 - 2006;
Schedule of Regular Meeting and Workshops Fiscal Year 2005 - 2006;
District Map; Five Year Plan; and Audited Financial Statements
September 30,2004.
B. Minutes:
1. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Agenda of
August 8, 2005; Minutes of August 8, 2005; Agenda of September 12,
2005; and Minutes of August 8, 2005.
H:\D AT A \Miscellaneous Correspondence\misc corres 10-11-05 .doc
"
~
,
.
2. Pelican Bay Services Division: Agenda of September 7,2005; Agenda of
August 3, 2005; and Minutes of August 3,2005.
a) Budget Sub-Committee: Agenda of September 21,2005; and
Minutes of May 18,2005.
b) Clam Bay Sub-Committee: Agenda of September 7,2005;
Agenda of August 3, 2005; and Minutes of August 3, 2005.
3. Collier County Library Advisory Board: Agenda of August 24,2005; and
Minutes of June 22, 2005.
4. Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of June 23,
2005; and Agenda of June 23, 2005.
5. Golden Gate M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda of September 13,
2005; and Minutes of August 9, 2005.
6. Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Minutes of
August 10,2005; and Agenda of September 14,2005.
7. Development Services Advisory Committee: Agenda of August 3,2005;
and Minutes of August 3, 2005.
8. Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee: Minutes of August
17,2005; and Agenda of June 15,2005.
9. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U.: Minutes of August 16,2005; and
Agenda of September 20, 2005.
10. Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of September 15,2005;
and Minutes of August 4, 2005.
11. Collier County Preservation Board: Agenda of September 21,2005; and
Minutes of August 17,2005.
12. Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee: Minutes of May 23, 2005;
Minutes of March 21, 2005; and Minutes of January 24,2005.
13. Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board: Agenda of September 21,
2005.
C. Other:
1. Memo to County Manager from Tom Henning dated September 26,2005,
referencing Golden Gate Library.
H:\DA T A \Miscellaneous Correspondence\misc corres 10-11-05.doc
2. Memo to Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Halas, Commissioner
Fiala, and Commissioner Coletta; from Commissioner Henning, dated
September 22, .2005, referencing UFR List.
H: \D AT A \Miscellaneous Correspondence\misc corres 10-11-05 .doc
October 11,2005
Item #16Jl
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT #03-3497, "AUDITING
SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY" WITH KPMG LLP, TO
INCLUDE A PROPOSED PRICE OF $379,200.00 FOR THE FY-
2005 AUDIT - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16Kl
AN AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF EXPERT FEES IN
CONNECTION WITH PARCEL 125 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. G. HERBST, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5138-
CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018). FISCAL IMPACT:
$6.,405.00 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K2
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCELS 720,920,
721,921,722, AND 922 IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,490.00 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. LORD 'S WAY REALTY
LLC, ET.AL., CASE NO. 05-1055-CA (SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT REVERSE OSMOSIS
(RO) WELLFIELD EXPANSION TO 20-MGD, PROJECT NO.
708921). FISCAL IMPACT: $2,840.00 - STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE
SUM OF $1,490.00 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT AND
PAYMENT OF $150 SERVICE FEE TO CLERK OF COURT
Item #16K3
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCELS 154 & 754 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOSEPH
Page 321
October 11, 2005
SANNICANDRO, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2500-CA (GOLDEN
GATE PARKWAY PROJECT 60027). (FISCAL IMPACT $37,799)
- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K4
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCELS 155 AND 755 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOSEPH
SANNICANDRO, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2500-CA (GOLDEN
GATE PROJECT 60027). (FISCAL IMPACT $10,719.00) - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K5
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT AFTER
NOVEMBER 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 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item # 1 7 A
RESOLUTION 2005-348: PETITION A VPLAT2005-AR8037 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
Page 322
October 11, 2005
THE PUBLICS INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 20 FOOT
WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE TRACT
LINE COMMON TO TRACTS 7 AND 10, ACCORDING TO THE
UNRECORDED PLAT OF NAPLES PRODUCTION PARK,
LOCATED IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST., COLLIER COUNTY., FLORIDA
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2005-349: PETITION SE-2005-AR-7530
SCRIVENERS ERROR TO CORRECT THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTION ATTACHED TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 05-156
THAT GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR THE
BETHEL ASSEMBLY OF GOD GYMNASIUM EXPANSION
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2005-350: PETITION SE-2005-AR-7607
SCRIVENERS ERROR TO REPLACE RESOLUTION NUMBER
2005-34, REGARDING FIDELITY BUILDING, LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY RYAN WHITE, OF SITE ENHANCEMENT
SERVICES, WHO APPLIED FOR A SIGN VARIANCE TO
ALLOW FIDELITY INVESTMENTS TO RETAIN THEIR ONE
EXISTING NON-CONFORMING GROUND SIGN.
RESOLUTION NUMBER 2005-34 FAILED TO REFLECT THE
CHANGES MADE BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AT THE JANUARY 11, 2005 PUBLIC
HEARING FOR THE SIGN VARIANCE PETITION (SN-2004-AR-
6501)
Item #17D - Moved to Item #8F
Page 323
October 11, 2005
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:30 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~w~
FRED W. COYLE, C airman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
F,. ,~r~ . [~!>' ~\ n
,{"~ "," " " ~ c."
( :', .; . ." t; " ~( ,
BY:~ te~~1A.-< -Q ( .
'..t....".., -
These minut~s approved by the Board on t:JD\J{mbf'v- <¥1. ðoOS,
as presented:;/ or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 324
_~"~'''.' "~,,".,,,_."_._. '","_ . "ú,_,_._____
<..,-....."....-."'----'..-.... ..._..".._._<,.._,~"..,<..-._'''.