BCC Minutes 11/29/2005 R
November 29, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, November 29, 2005
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Derek Johnssen, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tì'
"""'
'<:::-1
,
..,.~,,,,-.-- ";,
.. -._-~.=.
AGENDA
November 29, 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 VERBA TIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
Page 1
November 29, 2005
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. October 11, 2005 - BCC Meeting
C. October 13,2005 - BCC/Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate AM
Meeting-Rear half of room
D. October 14, 2005 - BCC/Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate AM
Meeting-Front half of room
E. October 20, 2005 - BCC/Emergency Meeting Hurricane Wilma
F. October 22, 2005 - BCC/Emergency Meeting Hurricane Wilma
G. November 7,2005 - BCC/Special Meeting Hurricane Wilma
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Page 2
November 29, 2005
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating December 1,2005, as World Aids Day. To be
accepted by Betty Ford, Planned Parenthood HIV Coordinator.
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Dick Green to discuss the Ordinance requiring
sidewalks to be installed on all County public and private streets/roads.
B. This item was continued from the October 25,2005 BCC Meeting. Public
Petition request by Jo Presi Brisson to discuss road paving in Golden Gate
Estates.
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 reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. V A-2005-AR-8l22,
Carl and Karen Koller, as owner and agent, are requesting four after-the-fact
Variances as follows: a .8-foot variance from the required 7.5 foot side yard
to 6.7 feet; a .3-foot variance from the required 7.5 foot side yard to 7.2 feet:
a 2.5-foot variance from the required 20 foot rear yard setback to 17.5 feet;
and a 1.8-foot variance from the required 20 foot rear yard setback to 18.2
feet for the completion of a partially constructed addition to an existing
single- family structure and an existing encroachment of the existing
nonconforming single family structure to the side (west) and rear yard
setback requirements. The subject property is located at 610 99th Avenue
North, Naples Park Unit 3, Lot 28, Block 29, in Section 28, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. V A-2005-AR-7965
James and Lori Hall, represented by Diane Faas, is requesting a variance for
an existing screen enclosure within the required 1 O-foot rear setback for an
accessory structure in a RSF-3 zoning district. The applicant is seeking a 2
foot, 4 inch variance from the required 10-foot set back, leaving an 8-foo,t 8-
Page 3
November 29, 2005
inch rear yard. The property to be considered for the variance is located at
112 Warwick Hills Drive and is further described as Unit 1 Block 4 Lot 8, of
Lely Golf Estates, in Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to Habitat Conservation Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to consider the following issues associated with
Conservation Collier contracting with a private, non-profit group as an
intermediary buyer for the School Board Section 24 property. (Joe Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development)
B. Recommendation to approve a Developer Contribution Agreement with
Calusa Pines Golf Club, LLC, to continue to accumulate right-of-way and
commitments for the Tree Farm Road, W oodcrest Drive and Massey Street
al ternative roadway proj ect.
C. Recommendation to approve Work Order CDM-FT-3593-06-0l, Contract
04-3593: for professional engineering services for the North East Regional
Water Treatment Plant Wellfield design in the amount of$1,709,6ll,
Project Number 70899. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
D. Recommendation to award a construction contract for the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant 20 Million Gallons per Day Wellfield
Expansion - Test Production Wells Construction to Hausinger & Associates,
Inc., Bid 063907, Project Number 708921 for $1,035,025.00. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Utilities)
E. Recommendation to approve the FY 06 contract between Collier County and
the State of Florida Department of Health for operation of the Collier
Page 4
November 29, 2005
County Health Department in the amount of $1,431,200. (Marla Ramsey,
Administrator, Public Services)
F. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to Fund 516, Property and
Casualty Insurance, to pay the cost of claims related to Hurricane Wilma.
($2.6M) (Len Price, Administrator, Administrative Services)
G. Recommend Approval of the attached FDEP Cost Share Contract
($6,321,752.00) for the construction and monitoring of the City of
Naples/Collier County Beach Renourishment Project No. 905271. (Jack
Wert, Director, Tourism)
H. Recommendation to discuss accepting Henderson Creek Drive as a public
road. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize its Chairman to sign an Interlocal Agreement between
the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida and
the City Council of the City of Naples, which Agreement supersedes
several separate prior Impact Fee Interlocal Agreements between the
Page 5
November 29, 2005
parties and provides for (1) the collection of Collier County Impact
Fees by the City, (2) the remittance of collected impact fees to the
County by the City, and (3) annual administrative fees to be retained
by the City.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize its Chairman to sign an Interlocal Agreement between
the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida and
the City of Everglades, which Agreement supersedes several separate
prior Impact Fee Interlocal Agreements between the parties and
provides for (1) the collection of Collier County Impact Fees by the
City, (2) the remittance of collected impact fees to the County by the
City, and (3) annual administrative fees to be retained by the City.
3) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign a Florida Division
of Historical Resources Grants-In-Aid Application and a Resolution in
support of the Application to fund an interpretive trail project at the
Conservation Collier Otter Mound Preserve for $5,002 (of which
$2,50 I will be reimbursable).
4) Recommendation to approve the application by Lucy Hair Salon for
the Job Creation Investment Program and the Fee Payment Assistance
Program.
5) CARNY-05-AR-8583, Annie Alvarez, Athletics/Special Events
Supervisor, Collier County Parks and Recreation Department,
requesting a permit to conduct the annual Snowfest carnival on
December 3 and 4,2005, at the Golden Gate Community Park,
located at 3300 Santa Barbara Boulevard.
6) Recommendation to approve a Resolution releasing the Countys
interest in Tract l3E, according to the plat of Lely Resort, Phase
Eleven, Plat Book 23, Pages 52 through 55, Public Records, Collier
County, Florida
7) Recommendation to approve a resolution by the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) of Collier County, Florida, amending the
Collier County Administrative Code to update the procedures for
expediting the development review process for qualified affordable
housing.
Page 6
November 29, 2005
8) Recommendation to approve a resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to establish procedures for
expediting the development review process for qualified Economic
Development Council Fast Track regulatory process program;
providing for codification of this policy and procedures; and, to
authorize an additional permanent position of Principal Planner within
the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review,
Community Development and Environmental Services Division, to
serve as the overall project manager of the Fast Track program at a
total budgeted FY06 cost of $100,000 for all pay, benefits, taxes and
operational expenses and approve a budget amendment in this same
amount.
9) Emergency declaration in support of Hurricane Wilma relief and
recovery operations: Recommendation to direct the County Manager,
or his designee, to allow county staff to issue temporary use permits
for banners at a reduced fee, which permits would be effective for a
period not to exceed six (6) months from the date of the Boards
Resolution, and to direct the County Manager to temporarily suspend
enforcement of the requirement for tree removal permits due to
damage caused by Hurricane Wilma and to direct the County Manager
to temporarily suspend enforcement of the requirement to replace
code required landscaping.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Award Bid # 06-3912 Purchase and Delivery of Inorganic and
Organic Mulch for the maintenance of roadway medians and County
grounds. ($550,000)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to award Work Order CDM-FT-3785-06-0l to
Camp Dresser McKee, Inc. professional engineering services for two
new potable water aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells at the
Carica Road water facilities site in the amount of $381 ,340.00, Project
70897.
Page 7
November 29, 2005
2) Recommendation to authorize the purchase of County-standardized
components and services pertaining to Wastewater Collections
Telemetry in the amount of$245,093.00 Project 73922.
3) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Disaster Debris
Removal Contract #05-3661 with AshBritt, Inc. to modify the existing
fee schedule in Appendix B and establish a cradle to grave price
structure of$25.00 per cubic yard.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners waive
competitive bidding and approve an agreement with James Lee Witt
Associates, LLC (JL W A) as coordinators of Federal Emergency
Management Agency Public Assistance and recovery program
oversight assistance for Hurricane Wilma in the estimated (not to
exceed) amount of $250,000; approve necessary budget amendments.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to authorize purchase of furnishings for North
Collier Regional Park in the amount of $273,825.85 from Office
Furniture and Design Concepts.
2) Recommendation to award Bid No. 05-3893 Eagle Lakes Phase II
ImprovementsConstruction of Pavilion and Tennis Courts to Welch
Tennis Courts, Inc. in the amount of $220,744 and Bid No. 05-3893
Eagle Lakes Phase II ImprovementsConstruction of Storage Building
to Sand Stone Builders in the amount of $144,000.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the addition of the classification Director
Stormwater Management to the 2006 Fiscal Year Pay and
Classification Plan and the removal of the Director Road Maintenance
from the 2006 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan.
2) Recommendation to Approve a Budget Amendment for On-site Grant
Training.
3) Recommendation to approve and execute an Easement to Florida
Power & Light Company for the installation of electrical facilities to
Page 8
November 29, 2005
serve the Courthouse Annex and Parking Deck, at a cost not to exceed
$27.00, Project 520102.
4) Recommendation to authorize the expenditure of a sum not to exceed
$3,453.89, resulting from the Boards October 26, 2004 approval of
agenda item l6E(3), to reclassify certain county employment
classifications from exempt to non-exempt under FLSA.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve a Tourist Development Category A FY
06 Tourism Grant Agreement submitted by the City of Naples for
Category A City of Naples Projects, in the amount of $125,000.00.
Project Numbers 900033 and 900212.
2) Recommendation to award Bid 05-3811 to Bennett Fire Products
Company, Inc. for EMS protective equipment, in the amount of
$22,400.
3) Recommend Approval of a 10-year lease with U.S. Mineral
Management Services (US/MMS) for Outer Continental Shelf Sand
required for the Beach Renourishment Project No. 905271.
4) Recommend Approval of a contract with the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida to provide shorebird monitoring as required by
FDEP permit for a cost of $34,798 Project No. 905271.
5) Recommend Approval of the proposal by Coastal Planning &
Engineering to provide construction phase engineering support and
surveying for a not-to-exceed, Time and Material price of $225,000
for the City of Naples/ County Beach Re-nourishment Project No.
90527.
6) Recommendation to approve a Resolution requiring FY07 Line-Item
Detail Budgets for the Sheriff, Clerk and Supervisor of Elections to be
submitted by May 1, 2006.
7) Recommendation to approve Amendment A-I to Contract 02-3411
Management Services for Pelican Bay Services Division with Severn
Trent Services, Inc. in the amount of $24,000 annually.
Page 9
November 29, 2005
8) Board approval of a Disaster Relief Funding Agreement for Federal
and State assistance for Hurricane Katrina (FEMA-1602-DR-FL).
9) Board approval of a Disaster Relief Funding Agreement for Federal
and State assistance for Hurricane Rita (FEMA-3259-DR-FL).
10) Board approval of a Disaster Relief Funding Agreement for Federal
and State assistance for Hurricane Wilma (FEMA-1609-DR-FL).
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the Immokalee Annual Farm-City Barbecue
on November 23,2005 and is requesting reimbursement in the amount
of $18.00, to be paid from his travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence to file for record with action as
directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Request that the Board ratify, and authorize the Chairman to sign, an
Interlocal Agreement for Election Services with the City of
Everglades, authorizing the Supervisor of Elections to lease to the
City certain voting equipment owned by Collier County, for use in the
City's for election held on November 22, 2005.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve payment of attorneys fees and costs in
the amount of$859.l0 for Parcel Nos. 142, 742A, 742B and 942 in
the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Parkway Community Church of
Page 10
November 29, 2005
God, et al., Case No. 03-2374-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project
60027). (Fiscal Impact $859.10)
2) Recommendation to approve payment of attorneys fees in the amount
of$800 for Parcel Nos. 141,841 and 143 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Primera Iglesia Cristiana Manantial De Vida, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 03-2372-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project 60027).(Fiscal
Impact $800)
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, adopt an Ordinance amending Schedule Ten of Appendix A
of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, as
amended, which is the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance,
providing for the incorporation by reference of the amended impact fee
study entitled Collier County Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study dated
September 15,2005 and revising the Law Enforcement Impact Fee Rate
Schedule to reflect a change in the Residential land use rate from an applied
formula to a tiered rate schedule.
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County amend the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (S.H.I.P.) down
payment and closing cost assistance program for first time homebuyers.
C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDEX-2005-AR-
8365 WCI Communities, Inc., represented by Richard Y ovanovich, Esquire
Page 11
November 29, 2005
of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., is requesting a 2- year extension of
the Lands End Preserve PUD in accordance with LDC Section
1 0.02.l3.D.5(a). The subject property, consisting of 262.9, is located in
Section 5, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
D. This item was continued from the November 15. 2005 BCC meetim!.
This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2005-AR-
7403 Grand Inn of Naples, Inc., represented by Michael Fernandez of
Planning Development Incorporated requesting a rezone from the PUD
zoning district to the PUD Mixed Use zoning district by revising the existing
Pine Ridge Medical Center PUD Document and PUD Master Plan to reduce
the commercial use to 10,000 sf, renovate the existing hotel into a
condominium building with 64 residential units and change the name of the
PUD. The property to be considered for this rezone is located in Section 15,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Lot 51, Collier County, Florida. This
property consists of 4.02 acres and is located at 1100 Pine Ridge Road.
E. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDEX-2005-AR-
8266; Section Thirty Corporation, LLC, represented by Dwight Nadeau, of
RW A, Inc., is requesting a 2-year extension to the Livingston Lakes PUD
from February 23, 2006 to February 23, 2008. The subject property,
consisting of 46.73 acres, is located on the east side of Livingston Road,
approximately of a mile south of Immokalee Road, Section 30, Township 48
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 12
November 29, 2005
November 29, 2005
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, the
session of the Board of County Commission meeting is now in order.
Would you please stand for the invocation by County Manager Jim
Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Heavenly Father, we come to you today as a
community thanking you for the blessings that you have so generously
provided, and how appropriate, as we celebrate the Thanksgiving
season.
Today we are especially thankful for the dedicated elected
officials, staff, and members of the public who are here to help lead
this county as it makes the important decisions that will shape our
community's future.
We pray that you would guide and direct the decisions made here
today so that your will for our county would always be done. These
things we pray in your holy name, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Okay, County Manager, would you like to review the agenda
with any changes you might have?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes Board of County
Commissioners meeting, November 29,2005.
Item 10D, remove the last words under the recommendations that
Page 2
November 29, 2005
read, and authorize the project manager to utilize the allowance if
necessary. Again, delete the words, and authorize the proj ect manager
to utilize the allowance if necessary. That's at staffs request.
The next item is item 16A9. The title should read that the board,
having declared a state of emergency in response to Hurricane Wilma,
direct the county manager, or his designee, to provide for a temporary
fee of $25 for the issuance for permits for banners which are
temporarily replacing damaged signs; number two, temporarily cease
enforcement of section 4.06.05.1.2 of the land development code of
Collier County, Florida, with regard to replacement of the code
requiring landscaping for a period not to exceed six months; and
number three, to temporarily cease enforcement of section 10.02.06.G
with regard to the requirement for tree removal permits for a period of
four months. That's at staffs request.
Also in item 16A9, number one under recommendations should
read, provide for a temporary fee of $25 dollar for the issuance of
permits for banners which are temporarily replacing damaged signs.
And that's at staff s request. That was also brought to our attention by
Commissioner Coyle.
Next item is to move item 16C1 to 101. It's a recommendation to
award a work order CDM-FT -3785-06-01, to Camp Dresser McKee,
Inc., Professional Engineering Services, for two new potable water
aquifer storage and recovery wells at the Carica Road water facilities
site in the amount of $381,340. It's project 70897, and that's at staffs
request. That has to do with -- there was a numerical error to the
amount of money, and we need to correct that on the record. It got to
be too long to read into the record, so we'll do it on the regular agenda.
Next item is item 16C4. Staff requests the following be read into
the record. The master contract with James Lee Witt being approved
this morning -- it say, if approved this morning -- will be executed
through specific county-approved task orders to clearly delineate the
work effort and deliverables of each task.
Page 3
November 29, 2005
These task orders will be reviewed in advance by the Clerk of
Courts, the purchasing and County Attorney's Office, prior to approval
by the public utilities division. That's at staffs request.
Item l6F4. It's a request that this item be continued to December
13, 2005, and it's to recommend approval of a contract with the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida to provide shorebird monitoring as
required by FDEP permit for a cost of $34,798. It's project number
905271, and that's at staffs request.
And then the next item is item l6F5. It's a request that this item
be continued to December 13,2005, BCC meeting. It's to recommend
approval of the proposal by the coastal planning and engineering firm
to provide construction phase engineering support and surveying for a
not-to-exceed time and material price of $225,000 for the City of
Naples/county beach renourishment project number 90527, and that's
at staff s request.
Both items are in legal review, and they need to be continued
because they needed a little bit more time.
Next item is item l7B. It's a request that this item be continued
to December 13,2005, BCC meeting due to failure to meet the
advertising deadline. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County amend the State Housing Initiatives
Partnership, S.H.1.P., down payment and closing cost assistance
program for first time homebuyers, and that's at staffs request.
The next item is to move item 1 7D to 8A. This item was
continued from the November 15,2005, BCC meeting. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commissioner members.
It's PUDZ-A-2005-AR-7405, the Grand Inn of Naples, Inc.,
represented by Michael Fernandez of Planning Development, Inc.,
requesting a rezone from the PUD zoning district to the PUD mixed
use zoning district by revising the existing Pine Ridge Medical Center
PUD development and PUD master plan to reduce the commercial use
Page 4
November 29, 2005
to 10,000 square foot, renovate the existing hotel into a condominium
building with 64 residential units and change the name of the PUD.
The property to be considered for this rezone is located in
Section 15, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Lot 51, Collier
County, Florida. This property consists 4.02 acres and is located at
1100 Pine Ridge Road, and that move was at Commissioner Coyle's
request.
I'll take a deep breath, let your fingers calm down just a second.
Time certain items is item lOA to be heard at 11 a.m., and it's a
recommendation to consider the following items associated with
Conservation Collier contracting with a private non-profit group as an
intermediary buyer for the school board section 24 proj ect, and that
time certain is at staffs request and the school board staffs request.
Commissioner Coyle, I'd like -- one thing that isn't on your sheet.
We have land use items. We have two items under 7 and we have one
item under number 8.
Mr. Fernandez is here for the 8 item. I've asked Mr. Schmitt to
contact the two petitioners for the Board of Zoning Appeals under
number 7, 7 A and B and as soon as those folks are here and I'm told
that, then we will go to those items as the next item on the agenda and
try to get all our land use items done this morning also, because this is
a relatively short agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
County Attorney, do you have any changes or guidance for us
this morning?
MR. WEIGEL: No changes, but a comment, thank you. I would
suggest that by virtue of the fact that the land use items, 7 A and 7B
and out in 8A, by virtue of the fact that they are essentially noticed for
hearing at one o'clock or thereafter, that the board may, in fact, keep
that -- keep that timetable.
We do have a distinction here. They advertised to begin at nine,
but the notice that is pursuant to sunshine is essentially indicating --
Page 5
November 29, 2005
which is our agenda index, indicates that they would be heard at one
o'clock. Unless Jim has another thought there, I would suggest you
just retain those for the one o'clock and thereafter hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How many of those are there?
Would that include 7A and 7B?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and now 8A.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 8A. 7 A, 7B, and 8A should be heard --
you're advising us to retain the original schedule because --
MR. WEIGEL: I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- although we can notify the petitioners,
we can't necessarily notify members of the public who might
otherwise have --
MR. WEIGEL: This is precisely it, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- wished to attend. Okay. Then we--
MR. MUDD: Can I just make one statement?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MR. MUDD: David, I'd like to ask you one piece on 8A--
MR. WEIGEL: Sure.
MR. MUDD: -- because that item was moved by Commissioner
Coyle yesterday, from the summary agenda to the regular agenda. It
wasn't noticed because it was on the summary. If somebody was here
to speak against it, they would be here this morning in order to do that
before the board approved the consent or the summary agenda, and
that particular item, I believe, we would still be on pretty safe ground
if we heard that this morning.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, pretty safe, although the fact is that
typically when things are moved off summary agenda, they move to
the regular advertised agenda, which is one o'clock. So again, call it
the spoonful of precaution, I would suggest that you leave it for one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, we'll start with
Page 6
November 29,2005
Commissioner Henning this time with ex parte disclosure for the
summary agenda and for any further changes to the regular, consent,
or summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I have no ex
parte on the summary agenda, and just a question on l6C4, is -- are
we working under a timeline where we can't continue this item so the
board can clearly understand the tasks or concerns from the Clerk of
Court?
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator. I believe we've addressed those concerns in what we
read into the record today. And we've met with the clerk yesterday,
clerk's office yesterday, with county attorney's office as well, and our
procurement folks, and we ironed that through, and that was the
reason we read that item into the record this morning, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I think it's the duty of the
Board of Commissioners to approve any task or any changes to a
contract, so I'm going to move that to the 6 -- or to the regular agenda
so that we can understand that.
MR. DeLONY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: It would be 16 -- I mean 10J.
MR. MUDD: 10J.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you review that? Which item is
that going to?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to have l6C4
moved to the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 16C4 to regular agenda. And that's going
to become what item?
MR.OCHS: 10J, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 10J, okay. Very well.
Anything else, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
Page 7
November 29, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no disclosures on l7D,
but on l7C, I've had meetings about Lands Ends Preserve, I've also
had e-mails, and I've also had phone calls, and I've called people and
we discussed this during a BCC meeting regarding concurrency and
private funding to expand 951.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have had -- with respect to
l7C, I have had a telephone call with Mr. Y ovanovich concerning his
request for this item, and on 17D, I have met with the petitioner's
agent concerning this PUD change, or rezone, and that includes
correspondence and a meeting. And those are the only changes and! or
disclosures that I have for the summary agenda.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. On the summary agenda,
the only disclosure I have is 17 A. I met with Carl Koller, and I also
received e-mails and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning. I have no changes
to the agenda this morning, and I have no ex parte on anything in -- on
the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. It's my
understanding we have a speaker on a couple of items on the consent
agenda.
MS. FILSON: I believe it's 16Al and 16C3; is that correct, Bob?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Actually, no. It's l6Bl and l6C3. Thank
you. I'm sorry. I just arrived, and I gave her the wrong information.
Commissioners, I respectfully request that those items be moved
from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. I just walked in the
door. I heard Commissioner Henning making some comments. You
may have already done this on one of the items.
But the l6Bl deals with a $500,000 purchase of mulch for
landscaping throughout the county, and I wonder if with all the mulch
Page 8
November 29, 2005
we have from the hurricane and with the fact there's a -- we had the
opportunity and in the future still have the opportunity to use mulch
generated from the county for this purpose, we might want to look at
this in greater detail.
And then the one I'm most interested in is the amendment to the
FEMA arrangement where we were spending 30 million --
approximately 30 million on hurricane cleanup.
And I notice in that item, there's a $6.5 million readjustment
savings to the county and -- in the new contract, and that's a big
amount of money. And in the -- in the executive summary, it kind of
mentions that a lot of the decisions to go ahead and move forward on
this contract fell on the shoulders of one individual in the solid waste
department. That's a lot of responsibility to put on one person.
So I think these items should come in front of the commissioners
and public, you know, when they're big items like that. So I'd like to
hear the presentation and I'd comment at that time.
Also in the FEMA cleanup, I have a question about, the FEMA
people hired by FEMA are picking up white goods. We already have
a contract with Waste Management to pick up the white goods. So are
we paying double, or are we -- you know, letting Waste Management
off the hook by paying other people to do their work? You know, just
a question. I'm a bit confused about that, you know.
So that's my request. Thank you very much for --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Krasowski, I presume you've read
number -- item number 16B 1 ?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is it about the staffs explanation
about not using the debris from the hurricane as mulch that you do not
understand?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, they make -- they make the point that
the stuff used from the hurricane would -- could very well have
diseases in them that could be spread throughout the horticultural
Page 9
November 29, 2005
community. And I'd be curious to know where that information
comes from, because as an organic gardener and familiar with years,
as a hobby, with the farming and that kind of environmental stuff,
there's -- there is a lot of use of that type of material. But then the
material could be composted or treated just like the people we're
buying the mulch from.
It just -- it seems like we're using -- buying -- spending half a
million dollars on one thing whereas some of this material could be
available. I don't know if they're sterilizing the eucalyptus chips we're
going to buy from there or whatever. You know, I just have questions
in that regard.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. KRASOWSKI: But thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have anything, Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was going to ask the same
question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any comments -- any further
comments by members of the board? Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'm a little puzzled about
the use of the way -- the ground-up mulch. I understand totally why it
would have to be pulled; however, you know, I can understand
number 3, asking for C-3 to be pulled just for a little more detail. I
could support pulling C-3 for discussion. I'd have a little difficulty in
pulling the one on the mulch after the staffs explanation was so clear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I thought it was very clear. Then
you're suggesting we pull 16C3?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then that will become 10K; is that
right?
MR. MUDD: K, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Any further questions or
Page 10
November 29, 2005
comments by the board? Then is there a motion to approve today's
regular, consent, and summary agendas as amended?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second
by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning is
dissenting?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. And it passes 4-1.
Page 11
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
November 29.2005
Item 10D: Remove the last words under Recommendations that read: "and authorize the Project Manager to utilize the
allowance if necessary." (Staff's request.)
Item 16A9 - Title should read: That the Board, having declared a state of emergency in response to Hurricane Wilma,
direct the County Manager, or his designee, to: (1) provide for a temporary fee of $25.00 for the issue of permits for
banners which are temporarily replacing damaged signs; (2) temporarily cease enforcement of Section 4.06.05.J.2. of
the Land Development Code of Collier County, Florida with regard to replacement of code required landscaping for a
period not to exceed six (6) months; and (3) to temporarily cease enforcement of Section 10.02.06.G. with regard to the
requirement for tree removal permits for a period of 4 months. (Staff's request.)
Also in Item 16A9: (1) under Recommendation should read: "(1) provide for a temporary fee of $25.00 for the
issuance of permits for banners which are temporarily replacing damaged signs;" (Staff's request.)
Move item 16Cl to 101: Recommendation to award Work Order CDM-FT-3785-06-01 to Camp Dresser McKee, Inc.,
professional engineering services for two new potable water aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells at the Carica
Road water facilities site in the amount of $381,340, Project 70897. (Stafrs request.)
Item 16C4: Staff reQuests that the followinl! be read into the record: The master contract with James Lee Witt being
approved this morning will be executed through specific County approved Task Orders to clearly delineate the work
effort and deliverables of each task. These Task Orders will be review in advance by the Clerk of Courts, Purchasing
and the County Attorney's Office, prior to approval by the Public Utilities Division. (Stafrs request.)
Item 16F4: ReQuest that this item be continued to the December 13.2005 BCC meetinl!: Recommend approval of a
contract with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to provide shorebird monitoring as required by FDEP permit for a
cost of $34,798 Project No. 905271. (Staff's request.)
Item 16F5: ReQuest that this item be continued to the December 13. 2005 BCC meetinl!: Recommend approval of the
proposal by Coastal Planning & Engineering to provide construction phase engineering support and surveying for a
not-to-exceed Time and Material price of $225,000 for the City of Naples/County Beach Renourishment Project No.
90527. (Stafrs request.)
Item 17B: ReQuest that this item be continued to the December 13. 2005 BCC meetinl! due to failure to meet advertisinl!
deadline. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County amend the State Housing
Initiatives Partnership (S.H.J.P.) down payment and closing cost assistance program for first time homebuyers. (Staff's
request.)
Move Item 17D to 8A: This item was continued from the November 15, 2005 BCC meeting. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2005-AR-7403 Grand
Inn of Naples, Inc., represented by Michael Fernandez of Planning Development, Inc., requesting a rezone from the
PUD zoning district to the PUD Mixed Use zoning district by revising the existing Pine Ridge Medical Center PUD
Development and PUD Master Plan to reduce the commercial use to 10,000 sf, renovate the existing hotel into a
condominium building with 64 residential units and change the name of the PUD. The property to be considered for
this rezone is located in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Lot 51, Collier County, Florida. This property
consists of 4.02 acres and is located at 1100 Pine Ridge Road. (Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item lOA to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation to consider the following issues associated with Conservation
Collier contracting with a private, non-profit group as an intermediary buyer for the School Board Section 24 property.
(Staff's request.)
November 29, 2005
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, #2G
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 11, 2005, BCC MEETING;
OCTOBER 13, 2005, BCC VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE A.M. MEETING; OCTOBER 14,2005,
BCC VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
A.M. MEETING; OCTOBER 20, 2005, BCC EMERGENCY
MEETING, HURRICANE WILMA; OCTOBER 22, 2005, BCC
EMERGENCY MEETING, HURRICANE WILMA; NOVEMBER 7,
2005, BCC SPECIAL MEETING, HURRICANE WILMA -
APROVED AS PRESENTED
Now, with respect to the minutes of the October 11, 2005, BCC
meeting; October 13,2005, BCC Value Adjustment Board special
magistrate a.m. meeting; October 14,2005, BCC Value Adjustment
Board special magistrate a.m. meeting; October 20,2005, BCC
emergency meeting, Hurricane Wilma; October 22,2005, BCC
emergency meeting, Hurricane Wilma; November 7,2005, BCC
special meeting, Hurricane Wilma.
Is there a motion to approve these minutes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
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.
Page 12
November 29, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The minutes are approved.
Item #3
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBER)
That now brings us to service awards, and we have one 20- year
attendee.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Do you want to take it -- stay up there
and have that person come forward?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why not? Why not?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have anything to present him.
MR. MUDD: Yes, you do, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where is it? Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Coming right to you. That brings us to service
awards. Our 20-year attendee in Collier County is Mr. David Weigel,
the County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: David?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. There's your
plaque, and thank you very much for 20 years of service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for all you do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. You get to stay here for
a picture now.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, David.
(Applause.)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good job, David.
Page 13
November 29,2005
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER 1,2005 WORLD
AIDS DAY, ACCEPTED BY BETTY FORD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to number 4,
proclamations. It's 4A. It's a proclamation designating December 1,
2005, as World AIDS Day, to be accepted by Betty Ford, who's the
Planned Parenthood HIV Coordinator.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it will be presented by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Hello, please
come up front. Good morning.
MS. FORD: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Whereas, AIDS and HIV impacts the
globe with an estimated 40 million people living with AIDS or HIV
infection worldwide; and,
Whereas AIDS and HIV continue to be a health concern here in
Florida with over 5,000 new HIV infections in 2003 and 43,000
people living with AIDS; and,
Whereas, one person's infected with AIDS every 6.4 seconds;
and,
Whereas, Collier County has over 275 people living with HIV
and over 900 AIDS cases; and,
Whereas, the World AIDS Campaign from 2005 to 2010 is ( sic)
called on individuals and groups to support the theme, stop AIDS
now. Keep the promise, aimed at government and policy makers; and,
Whereas, recognizing the fight against HIV and AIDS will be
won by scientific research and by effective HIV prevention; and,
Whereas, people are encouraged to ensure that policies and
programs exist to protect the rights of all people to be informed and
educated about the risk of AIDS -- HIV.
Page 14
November 29, 2005
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that December 1, 2005, be
designated as World AIDS Day.
Done and ordered this, the 29th day of November, 2005, Fred W.
Coyle, Chairman, and I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously. Congratulations.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi, how are you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, you've got to stay here for a
picture.
MS. FORD: Could I just say a word?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead.
(Applause.)
MS. FORD: Thank you. I would like to invite everyone in the
audience and you all, December 1st, Thursday, six o'clock, Cambier
Park will be our remembrance and commemoration program, so I'd
like to invite you all to come. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 15
November 29, 2005
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUESTED BY DICK GREEN TO
DISCUSS THE ORDINANCE REQUIRING SIDEWALKS TO BE
INST ALLED ON ALL COUNTY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
STREETS/ROADS - DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- there are no
presentations. That brings us to number 6, public petitions. It's 6A.
It's a public petition request by Dick Green to discuss the ordinance
requiring sidewalks to be installed on all county public and private
streets/roads.
MR. GREEN: Good morning. I'm Dick Green, the owner of
Green Acres and Landscapes, and I've brought this petition forward
concerning the sidewalks that are required for all private and public
streets within the county. And if there is a sidewalk to nowhere, for
instance, out in the wilderness, where -- this property we have, that
we're required to pay for the amount of money for the sidewalks
which would have normally gone into putting them -- paving them and
turning those funds over to the county for hiking trails and bicycle
trails.
In March of'05, we purchased a piece of property, five acres, to
replace our present nursery, which is off of Tree Farm Road. The new
property is 2626 Smith Road.
The -- during the preapplication meeting, this was brought to our
attention, and it was discussed by an engineering firm who I had hired
to process our permitting through the county.
The -- there was confusion at that time, and the cost of these
sidewalks for our particular property went from 50,000 down to 6- to
7,000, and then we submitted a check to the county for what our
engineering firm had calculated for $4,600. That came back to us and
said that it was $23,000 that we would have to pay for these sidewalk
Page 16
November 29, 2005
funds.
We hired -- or got a bid from a concrete company on October
10th which, with the two county specifications would have been the
cost of the sidewalks to go along this property, and that came out to
10,140.
The engineering firm was told by the staff that that was
reasonable for labor and material but the funds that the county was
requesting also included engineering fees.
What I'm asking is, one, is this engineering fees, how does this fit
into what we as a -- if we had to put the sidewalks there, would we
also have to pay the -- somebody another $13,000 after spending
$10,000 to put the cement there for the sidewalks?
During our preapplication meeting, it was verbally said to the
engineering firm, get us a quote and we will work that into the
program however they can see fit, if at all possible.
So that's my concern, is trying to understand that -- the $13,000,
which was called engineering fees, and how it affects us and why is it
on the bill for us to pay above the 10,140 for the actual cost of putting
the sidewalks in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have you asked the staff this question?
MR. GREEN: I don't know -- I'm sorry. I don't know who the
engineering firm talked to. They talked to quite a few people in the
staff and suggested that I go this route to bring it before you people.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can we have staff address this
briefly?
MS. SCOTT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Trinity Cadel Scott (phonetic), Pathway Project Manager.
I've had numerous conversations with the applicant's
representative. The $4,500 cost figure came by utilizing FDOT's cost
estimate, but FDOT's cost estimate is an overall estimate for all
project costs.
And it is $6.86 per square foot. The engineering firm calculated
Page 1 7
November 29, 2005
that by a lineal foot, so that's where the $4,500 came from.
All that we would ask the applicant do is provide an engineer's
cost estimate, a contractor's cost estimate, which is -- I'm sorry -- what
is in CDS's schedule of fees that we ask for an engineer's cost
estimate, understanding that the applicant may be able to build that
sidewalk cheaper than what FDOT's cost estimates are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. SCOTT: So if we would receive a signed and sealed cost
estimate from the engineering firm, we would accept their check.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Does that answer your
question?
MR. GREEN: That answers my question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then Trinity, if you will give this
gentleman your telephone number, office telephone number, and -- so
he can talk with you to clarify any issues on this --
MS. SCOTT: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that would be helpful.
MS. SCOTT: Perfect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And hopefully we can get it resolved.
MR. GREEN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sir, I think there's a question.
MR. GREEN: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question for the board. When
we developed this pay in lieu of sidewalks, what I understood it was
going to be, if they don't want to put sidewalks within their
development, then pay in lieu of would develop sidewalks outside of
their community.
And it's my understanding that that's a direct benefit for the fee
paid, just like a permit or any other fee for service, water/sewer,
whatever, there is a direct benefit.
Page 18
November 29, 2005
My personal opinion, I don't see sidewalks being built in the rural
agricultural community, such as Smith or Rivers Road, or even parts
surrounding Immokalee, outside Immokalee's urban area.
Is there any wishes of the board to ask to do some amendment to
the land development code excluding areas outside the urban area and
Golden Gate Estates for sidewalks?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand where you're coming
from, Commissioner Henning, but we are building more schools out in
the rural area, and I think we're trying to encourage people to walk to
those schools, and most of those schools are going to be put into
developments near or around out there in the rural fringe.
So I think that we ought to continue with the -- where we are
right now with our land development code, because I think eventually
as the population moves out in that direction, we're going to be putting
in more sidewalks.
Ifwe look today, we can see there's sidewalks even along
Immokalee Road, and I know there's been some question about that.
But I believe that as we have more development out in that area, that
people are going to be using those sidewalks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think Commissioner
Halas covered it, but I just wanted to bring up the same point and
reiterate that the growth out in the Estates is just unbelievable. It won't
be too long before that area will be classified as an urban area. It's
inevitable with the growth the way it is, and when it starts to fill in.
And you're going to find that while you won't see sidewalks on every
side street down there, all the main thoroughfares will have sidewalks,
and we'll need funds to be able to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coletta, I
didn't want to exclude Golden Gate Estates. But the thought of it
being an urban area brings up some more challenges for our services
Page 19
November 29, 2005
and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It does.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- 16 units per acre and things of
that nature.
But anyways, Commissioner Halas, I think, really hit it on the
head, the direct benefit of putting sidewalks to schools that would be
located in the agricultural area in a rural communities of Collier
County is a direct benefit to your employees.
MS. GREEN: The property that we're talking about, we're zoned
agriculture. We're -- have to remain that for 25 years. We cannot
change the zoning on that property because it's in the mitigating
portion or something along that line.
So there's no way we can change -- come in and change that
zoning the way it is right now, from what my understanding is. So
we're 25 years at this. And that doesn't bother us. The thing that
bothers us is bringing things to us that will never be done out there and
these costs to try to compete with other people in the community when
we're just moving. We're not impacting the county in any other way.
We're just moving where we are presently, to this other location, away
from development so that we can continue to have a nursery and
maintain it in that basis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Does that include like the
ACSC? Do they still have to pay for sidewalks in areas like that?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator. Yes, in public and private
development, what we're trying to do is move forward. I think the
point that's being made here is, many of what is the current urbanized
area at one time was considered more the rural area, and we're now
trying to make up the gaps in the system that weren't created.
For the most part, out in the Estates, I think Commissioner Halas
was right on point, as we look at what we're going to do out there and
Page 20
November 29, 2005
as new schools move in, we will concentrate those sidewalk efforts on
the roadways that are most supportive of those particular schools as
they go into place.
So the payment in lieu acknowledges as the applicant is talking,
that there's not a need for them to put it right at their property line, but
there are needs for sidewalks in that area, and that's what we're trying
to utilize these funds for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the petition really was just
questioning the amount of money associated with this.
MR. FEDER: And on the amount of --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you get a reasonable estimate, I think
you're happy with that; is that correct?
MR. GREEN: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good.
Any further comments by the commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much for coming
In.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JO PRESI BRISSON TO
DISCUSS ROAD PAVING IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - NO
SHOW
MR. MUDD: The next public petition is 6B. This item was
continued from the October 25,2005, BCC meeting, and continued to
the November ones because the meetings went a little bit late, and Ms.
Brisson had to -- had to be someplace else at the time, so she asked the
board to continue.
It's a public petition request from Jo Presi Brisson to discuss the
road paving in the Golden Gate Estates.
Page 21
November 29, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And there's no one here. Okay. Okay.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2005-414: APPOINTING JENNIFER HECKER TO
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AD-HOC ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Okay. That brings us -- brings us to the next item,
which is 9 A, which is appointment of member to the Habitat
Conservation Plan Ad Hoc Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to appoint Jeremy Sterk.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion for Jeremy Sterk by
Commissioner Henning.
Are there other nominations?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion we approve
Jennifer Hecker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a nomination for
Jennifer Hecker by Commissioner Halas.
Any further nominations?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we'll take the nominations in the
order in which they were that he had.
All in favor of Jeremy Sterk.
MS. FILSON: I don't have a second on that one, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That wasn't necessary not.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not necessary to have a second on
nominations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to remove that since
there's no support on the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there might be.
Page 22
November 29,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There might be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So go ahead -- and we'll go ahead and
call the motion for Jeremy Sterk.
All in favor of Jeremy Sterk, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Three votes for Jeremy Sterk,
Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coyle, and Commissioner
Coletta.
Now, for Jennifer Hecker. All in favor of Jennifer Hecker,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There are three votes for Jennifer
Hecker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you vote twice?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think either one of them are very well
qualified.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do they have an alternate on that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nope.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- committee?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's just the committee
recommended --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then Jennifer Hecker is the
committee recommendation. And in that case, I will let the committee
break the tie. So I will change my vote to Jennifer Hecker, and that
Page 23
,_._~,~.__".·~._o._~,_,,,_·,,_____· ...._._..._~_"._~<..._
November 29, 2005
provides -- well, it's still three, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I will remove my vote for Jeremy
Sterk and vote only for Jennifer Hecker, and that means that Jennifer
Hecker is selected by a vote of 3-2, okay, with Commissioner Halas,
Commissioner Coyle, and Commissioner Fiala voting in favor of the
appointment of Jennifer Hecker.
MR. MUDD: The next item --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2005-415: APPOINTING WILLIAM HILL AS
MEMBER TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9B. It's appointment of a member
to -- or members to the Environmental Advisory Council.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioners, if I may say something on
this one. This is to appoint one member to fulfill the remainder of a
vacant term, and since it's six months or less, we're going to appoint
them to that plus a four-year term.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it was confusing. It's only one person
MS. FILSON: One person.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for the entire period of time, five
years.
MS. FILSON: That's right. And, and--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
MS. FILSON : Wait, wait, wait, I'm not finished yet. And David
V. Allen, who was -- he came back from the elections office as not
being a registered voter. He did register yesterday. I have his
Page 24
November 29,2005
registration in hand, so he is -- he meets the criteria for appointment.
And also the person resigning was a technical member, however,
it says the commissioners should appoint six technical members and
three nontechnical. We currently with -- counting the one who
resigned, we had seven technical, so you can either appoint a technical
or nontechnical.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to
nominate William Hill.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'd like to make also a
motion to nominate Tad Bartareau.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bartareau.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because he seemed like he was
the most qualified.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Okay. We have a nomination for
Mr. William W. Hill and a nomination for Tad Bartareau. Let's have
the vote for Mr. Hill first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're both good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of Mr. Hill's appointment,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are three votes, Commissioner
Henning, Commissioner Fiala, and Commissioner Halas, for Mr. Hill.
All in favor of Mr. Bartareau, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
There are two votes for Mr. Bartareau, Commissioner Coy Ie and
Commissioner Coletta. Commissioner (sic) Hill is appointed.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Hill.
Page 25
November 29, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Hill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Hill.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. You said Commissioner Hill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, did I?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's your job.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've been here too long. Mr. Hill. Okay.
Item #1 OB
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH CALUSA
PINES GOLF CLUB, LLC, TO CONTINUE TO ACCUMULATE
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND COMMITMENTS FOR THE TREE FARM
ROAD, WOODCREST DRIVE AND MASSEY STREET
ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY PROJECT - APPROVED
W/STAFF'S REVISIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is item lOB. It's a recommendation to approve a developer
contribution agreement with Calusa Pines Golf Club, LLC, to continue
to accumulate right-of-way and commitments for the Tree Farm Road,
Woodcrest Drive and Massey Street alternative roadway project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is staff going to make a
presentation or is the petitioner?
MR. MUDD: I believe Nick's getting his jacket on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I find the agreement in order,
therefore I'm going to make a motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
Page 26
November 29, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- unless we need to get things
on the record.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Good morning, Commissioners.
For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Division.
I have one minor change I'd like to go over with you, if I could.
It's regarding the drainage section. If I could put it on the overhead
VIewer.
It's basically in the section that discusses drainage improvements.
We've modified it to allow a little bit of flexibility. What we've done
is we've provided an Exhibit D in the agreement, and it pretty much
discussed what we were going to do as part of the drainage
improvement.
In the change we have made, we have capped the developer's
exposure because we have kind of figured out the costs in terms of
what the improvement would be. And we have allowed ourselves the
flexibility to change that drainage improvement to allow for more
stormwater to be conveyed in that drainage ditch, and that's pretty
much the only change to the agreement.
On page 1, we fill in the blank where it says how many trips will
be diverted from the intersection of Immokalee and Collier Boulevard.
It would be between 5,000 and 7,000 trips based on the transportation
study we've done. So also good things, and the change itself, I think,
benefits the county and helps, at least, you know, give the developer a
little comfort in what the exposure would be to those improvements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a revision to
my motion to include staffs revision to the agreement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I include that in my
second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, you have a
comment?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Could you, for the viewing
Page 27
November 29, 2005
audience out there, do you have basically a diagram that you can show
in regards to what we're talking about in regards to the road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have that diagram with me, sir,
I don't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a question with respect to the fair
share reimbursement from other future developments.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where does that money go?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it would go back to the
development who provided those improvements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. So it would go back to
this particular developer?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Does the county handle the
money, or are those direct payments from one developer to another?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we would try and set it up as a
direct payment or reimbursement to the developer and have the county
stay out of it, if we could, but at least the county oversee that and help
work out the fair share price of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coletta.
We have no speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further discussion by the board
members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does the petitioner need to speak?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I just would like to recognize the
petitioner, Mr. Chanceoff (phonetic). He's been very cooperative in
working with us, and I'd like to give him a little bit of credit for that.
Page 28
November 29, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Halas, this is as much --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There it is.
MR. MUDD: -- as I could find in my package, sir, as far as the
diagram was concerned.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just thought it would be good to
have it out there for the viewing audience so they had an
understanding of where we were talking.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Of the area.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
Item #10C
WORK ORDER CDM-FT-3593-06-01, CONTRACT 04-3593: FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE NORTH
EAST REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELLFIELD
DESIGN IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,709,611, PROJECT NUMBER
70899 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10C, which
Page 29
--,."".-..,--_..-._-~--~..,~....~~~..'_-"-'~~-'''_-'"'~-.._. -. "
November 29, 2005
is a recommendation to approve work order CDM-FT-3593-06-01,
contract 045 -- excuse me -- 04-3593, for Professional Engineering
Services for the Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant Wellfield
design in the amount of$1,709,6l1. It's project number 70899, and
Mr. Jim DeLony, your administrator for public utilities, will present.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator. This is the staff recommendations that are included in
your executive summary in front of you. I could have a short
presentation or I can go to your questions, Mr. Chairman. It's up to
you and the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Board members, what is your pleasure?
You have questions you'd like to have answered or --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think you ought to just make a
brief presentation --
MR. DeLONY: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- so we have some idea where
you're located.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir. All right. With that, let me
move to this. If you will help me, Mr. Mudd, I would appreciate it.
The public purpose for this project is listed on this chart and is
also included in the executive summary. But essentially this provides
the raw water source for the new northeast plant that we're expecting
to first come on line in 2009, the first increment of that. This is for 30
wells on 15 different well sites.
Mr. Mudd, please, next chart.
This is the scope of that. I've already told you a little bit about it,
but the bottom line, it provides those wells and the transmission
systems for the delivery of that raw water to that reverse osmosis
plant.
Just as a matter of orientation, this is the area of where the plant
and the wells will be. At least the first increment of wells will be
contained on the 2l6-acre site which we purchased a few years ago for
Page 30
"--'-'''''''''~-'-'''>''''-''''--''--''~--'---''-'"-'~'
November 29, 2005
our water and wastewater treatment facilities in the northeast part of
the county.
This is the county fairground in this location here, and this is that
land that is to the -- to the east of that location.
Currently, we have gone through all the land use petitions. We're
fully engaged in design, well underway. This is one increment of that
total program.
Next chart, Mr. Mudd. He does this pretty well. I can tell you he
must have had to rehearse this one time.
Again, this is the staff recommendation for this proj ect working
with CDM as the prime to provide these wellfield services -- wellfield
design services for the transmission in these 30 wells.
And I'm here for your questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 3 1
November 29, 2005
Item #10D
A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 20 MILLION
GALLONS PER DAY WELLFIELD EXPANSION - TEST
PRODUCTION WELLS CONSTRUCTION TO HAUSINGER &
ASSOCIATES, INC., BID 063907, PROJECT NUMBER 708921
FOR $1,035,025.00 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10D. It's a
recommendation to award a construction contract to the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant 20 million gallon per day wellfield
expansion, test production wells construction, to Hausinger &
Associates, Inc. It's bid number 06-3907, project number 708921, for
$1,035,025. And again, Mr. Jim DeLony, administrator for public
utilities will present.
MR. DeLONY: Members of the board, this is the
recommendation that's contained in your executive summary. I have a
short presentation. What is the will of the board?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go ahead and do it.
MR. DeLONY: All right. This is the public purpose for this
project. In the category of what's first and what's next in terms of
what's most important for public utilities, beyond the reliability wells,
which we have coming on line this winter -- actually between now and
Christmas and then some in the fall -- excuse me, in the spring to
come, this is our second most important project with regard to
providing raw water to our next plant expansion to come on line, and
this is at the south plant. This is the next expansion.
As you might recall, we had an earlier expansion of eight MGD.
This is the next expansion, and this contract provides for the raw water
wells -- first increment of raw water wells for that. We'll be back to
the board again later on with the next increment for raw water wells.
Page 32
November 29, 2005
But in the category of what's important, what's first and what's
second, this is certainly a close first, and for sure a hard second.
This is the public purpose, and here is the project scope of the
wellfield. This is including -- we already have two wells already in
place, and this, with the seven we've got, will give us some sufficient
capacity in terms of raw water to bring on the first increment of four
MGD of that total 12 MGD plant in February '07. In other words, just
in time for next season. Not this season, not this season, but the
follow-on season, '07.
Mr. Mudd, would you put this up?
This is the bid information. It was provided in your executive
summary, it provides how we went about procuring this competitive
procurement, and this is the results of that procurement. And again,
staff recommends that you approve this acquisition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. This is the same project that
you took us all on --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- a little tour with, and you've
worked with the neighbors, right?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was part of my question.
You're going so fast that --
MR. DeLONY: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I can't keep -- no. I can't keep
up with your projects.
MR. DeLONY: Well, I guess that's a good news story, I hope.
Page 33
November 29,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope so. I think it's important
that we all know what we're --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The question is, what's the
production going to be on the opposite side of potable water, creating
water? Is it 12 million gallons?
MR. DeLONY: The actual plant rated capacity, the construction
capacity, will be at 12 million gallons. That is the nameplate capacity
of the potable water. You'll have to put in somewhere between 14 to
18 MGD of raw water, depending on the blend, to get that 14 MGD.
But the constructed capacity of the plant itself will be 12 MGD in this
expansion. Now that would go with the eight constructed capacity we
already have there, for a total of20 MGD, which we have there for
reverse osmosis. Eight currently on line, 12 to come.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Twelve to come, but we're
producing 20 from the -- we're asking the engineer to produce 20 from
the wells.
MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir, because it will take care of the entire
expansIon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see. It will -- okay. It will
take --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You just completed expansion
on that. Was that the eight million?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And right now you don't have a
source for --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, I do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this reli -- all right. Well,
what's your source for the eight million?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I have a string of wellfields that are -- let me
go back over it again. The constructed capacity of the plant, the plant
Page 34
November 29, 2005
itself that's going to go in in the next expansion, is 12 MGD. That
would produce 12 million gallons per day of potable water.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: Now, to do that, we'll have to have more than 12
MGD worth of wells, because you have a loss that's anywhere -- 25
percent loss minimally in production of brackish water to freshwater.
So you can't have a one for one on the wells. Plus you want to have
sufficient reliability for that 12 MGD because you want to rest your
wells and you want to be able to do mechanics.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you want, doing the quick
math, it looks like a 10 percent reliability factor?
MR. DeLONY: Minimally, yes, sir. We're looking to
somewhere, 10 to 20 percent reliability for these type of wells.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, good. We won't get in the
same problem as we did, I think it was two years ago, when we had
some problems with delivery.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, if I just might take a moment to discuss that.
You have been very helpful in giving me direction in resources to
preclude that in terms of our overall water supply reliability and the
ability to do it in a predictable way as opposed to the knee jerks that
had happened in years past. And I think we're well on the path.
Certainly it will continue to be a challenge, but we've made significant
strides in the last couple of years, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Those knee jerks occurred when
Mr. Mudd was head of the public utilities?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, no comment.
MR. MUDD: Absolutely they did, because what I found in the
county is, they built just enough wells to produce the water that they
had. And if you took a well down, you lost capacity.
And Mr. DeLony has got us to the point where we do have some
reliability in our system that we never had before. So you're
absolutely correct, sir. Mr. DeLony's helping us fix that problem --
Page 35
~~__"_N"_'N'__' _ ._~~.______"_,,,_".._
November 29, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just wanted to clarify that point.
MR. MUDD: -- that I found in October of 2000, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I think there's one thing that
needs to be clarified, and that's the fact that we're not -- we're only
catching up with growth when we're building new wellfields, that
we're not creating growth, we're just catching up with the growth that's
coming to Collier County.
And so we want to make sure that the anticipated growth that is
coming, the PUDs that have been approved, we have to make sure that
we have the resources for water for those areas; am I correct?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, just -- yes, sir. And there's two critical
aspects to how we do that. Over the last couple of years -- first of all,
we lead off with our annual utilization inventory report.
And at that time I come before the board and tell you, what is
that demand, and what is our current status of supply, and then we
predict forward 25 years, as best we can, of how we're going to solve
that demand driven by supply, I mean driven by population. So in
terms of catch-up, yes, sir, we seriously have been playing some
catch-up ball.
In terms of our concurrency management, we look at
concurrency at AUIR, we look at it on a month to month basis with
regard to our permitting and Certificates of Occupancy; and then
finally, each and every day you check me on a concurrency when you
turn on the faucet and there's compliant and good quality water
pressure coming through that faucet.
So we get concurrency in three ways, and we're working hard to
sustain that in all three areas. But yes, sir, we're quite frankly, playing
a little bit of catch-up ball, and that's the reason I spoke earlier of the
need to get these reliability wells on line -- actually supply wells on
line this spring and this winter, and then to make sure that we hit the
target date of February '07 for the next expansion for the south plant.
Page 36
November 29, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. DeLony, you've answered
all my questions. And we do create growth every other week in
Collier County at this meeting. And you've done a good job of
keeping up with that in your department and in solid waste,
wastewater and potable water. Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to approve.
All -- any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No--
MS. FILSON: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No speakers?
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.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #10E
THE FY 06 CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR
OPERATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,431,200 - APPROVED
Page 37
November 29, 2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10E, which
is a recommendation to approve the FY -'06 contract between Collier
County and the State of Florida Department of Health for operation of
the Collier County Health Department in the amount of $1 ,431 ,200
and Dr. Joan Colfer, your Public Health Director, will present.
DR. COLFER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board. For the record, I'm Dr. Colfer, Director of the Health
Department.
And I am here this morning to seek approval of my department's
contract with the board as required in the state statute. The contract
shows all the revenue and expenses for our department.
As you know, we really are a state entity. Our budget -- total
budget is 12.1 million, of which the county contributes 1.4.
We think we're truly a bargain. You're providing 12.5 percent of
our budget, and in return we provide over 26 different public health
services to residents of Collier County.
Just a few examples are the immunization programs, which
provide over 40,000 immunizations to children and adults; we screen
20,000 school children annually for hearing, vision, scoliosis; our
pharmacy fills 26,000 prescriptions a year for people like HIV clients
and TB clients that corne through the health department; and the
dental clinic provides over 7,000 patient visits. Just a couple of
examples.
But perhaps just as important are the disease and issues that we
don't have here in Collier County. One of the services of any health
department is to provide communicable disease and epidemiology
services to the community. What that means is that when we have
reportable diseases, and there are -- we receive about 2,500 reportable
diseases each year, we follow up on each and every case.
We have a staff of people in epidemiology that that is their __
pretty much their sole job. And what they do is they go and they visit
each and every case and they provide either medications or vaccines
Page 38
--, '. ._---
November 29, 2005
to both the case, the family members, and in some cases, close
contacts.
And by doing that, we're assuring that there is no spread of these
diseases such as meningitis, tuberculosis, hepatitis A, into the general
population.
I can tell you that there are other counties that have had to
immunize, if not their whole county population, large segments of it
for some of these diseases. And so that's some of the safety that we
provide to our community.
In addition, we now have a syndromic surveillance system and
real-time lab reporting. These are offshoots ofbio terrorism funding
that give us an enhanced level of disease reporting to assure we're not
missing things like rash and fever, which you might worry about
smallpox.
But we also get reporting on influenza-like illnesses, so that also
allows us to monitor the amount of flu in our community each year.
And lastly, I believe the community sees us as a seamless part of
county government. I think we have a good relationship with the
board, with the county staff, from Mr. Mudd down to Skip Camp, who
makes sure our building is not only beautiful but safe for both clients
and our -- and our staff.
We appreciate all that the county does to support us in our role in
Collier County, and I'd ask for your support of the contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Dr. Colfer.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just a question, please. I
know that at one time years back you used to inspect restaurants for
cleanliness and so forth, and the state withdrew that, didn't they?
DR. COLFER: Yes; yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there ever a time that you can go
back and do that?
DR. COLFER: I bring it up virtually every year and I tell them
Page 39
'_'__"""'~___'__"_'_M__"__~___"__,._._.__.____
November 29, 2005
that you're the one -- you're the one that asks me, and it's the
Department of Budget and Professional -- I'm sorry -- Business and
Professional Regulation that does supervise the restaurants. And I
think it's a crying shame.
We do have a new secretary, so I will, perhaps, bring it up to him
now and try once again. But I swear to you, every year I bring it up. I
think it's terrible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know you and I agree on that.
DR. COLFER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Let me follow up on that last question. Does that mean nobody is
inspecting restaurants?
DR. COLFER: No, no, no. The Department of Business and
Professional Regulation does inspect the restaurants. And if there is a
food-borne outbreak, then we are involved. It's just that it's after the
fact. We would rather be in there looking at them, you know, every
couple of months and following up if there are deficiencies, but the
state law doesn't give us that authority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does the state publish reports on those
inspections?
DR. COLFER: No, no. I mean, I can get them. I can -- you
know, I can ask for them, but no, they're not publicized. The State of
California does that, and it's really nice when you go in their
restaurants, right as you go in the door, it's an A, B, C, D, E, just like
school, you know, and you only go into the A restaurants if you know
what that means.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if a restaurant is marginal from the
standpoint of cleanliness and health, we won't know about it?
DR. COLFER: No, sir, not until somebody gets sick. And it's a
Page 40
".~~..."
November 29, 2005
crying shame.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's a good plan.
DR. COLFER: It's awful. It's awful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Our state legislature did that too, I guess.
DR. COLFER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
DR. COLFER: Long before I got here, unfortunately.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to bring to the attention
that this is a cost share, that I believe that the state cost sharing is over
$4 million, and we're putting into the pie here about a million dollars
to take care of this particular situation; is that correct, Doctor?
DR. COLFER: Twelve and a half million -- I'm sorry, 12
million. So actually the state's putting in probably more like 10, 10
and a half million, and you're only putting in 1.4, and then you mix in
the UPL program, if you want me to explain that, I'll certainly try, so
that your percentage is really the 12.5 percent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I was looking at the funding
here, and it said the state's proportionate responsibility was -- what I
got, and maybe it's because I read something wrong here -- was
$6,400,000.
DR. COLFER: Okay. I'm going to need my business manager,
Joe Mezzatesta, to try and help explain. I don't know which page
you're on. He'll try and explain that with me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm on page 6 of 45, on the bottom
under funding, number four.
MR. MEZZA TEST A: Yeah. For the record, Joe Mezzatesta, the
Business Manager for the Health Department. Yeah, there is other
funding other than 6.4 million because --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That was brought out --
MR. MEZZA TEST A: -- there were other sources, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
Page 41
,"".....__ "_v·_··._,·..__...,,~_~___-.
November 29, 2005
12.
MR. MEZZA TEST A: So it brings the total up to approximately
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. Thank you very much
for the clarification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to
approve and a second, if I remember correctly.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And any further discussion by the board?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE:
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
DR. COLFER: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, before Dr. Colfer leaves. Now I'm
probably going to embarrass her a little bit, because I didn't tell her I'd
tell you this. But I just want to make sure that I bring to your attention
the work that she's done with her staff, first of all, in our special needs
shelters, and then with her leadership in our unrnet needs committee,
as we -- post-storm from Hurricane Wilma.
She's been absolutely super. There hasn't been a time where I
haven't been in that EOC where she hasn't been there and working.
And I watched her when one of her patients was in need because he
was having cardiac arrest. And, you know, it's not often that you get a
great public health director but you get one that really, really does care
about the patients that are in her care, and I believe we are very lucky
Page 42
~__'_"'""'''''. "~"'>"__e"~~'._____
November 29, 2005
to have Dr. Joan Colfer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very lucky.
DR. COLFER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #10F
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND 516, PROPERTY AND
CASUAL TY INSURANCE, TO PAY THE COST OF CLAIMS
RELATED TO HURRICANE WILMA - $2.6M - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 1 OF, and it's a recommendation to approve a budget
amendment to fund 516, which is property and casualty insurance, to
pay the cost of claims related to Hurricane Wilma, and that's some
$2.6 million. And Mr. Jeff Walker, your Director of Risk
Management, will present.
MR. WALKER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. Pardon my voice. I'm fighting a bit of a cold this
morning. I'll try not to contaminate the place.
The item before you this morning is a budget amendment to
move funds from our property casualty reserves to our claims line
item so that we can fund the cost of claims related to Hurricane
Wilma.
As you know, you have a self-insured retention on your property
casualty insurance fund. The maximum retention under that -- under
that fund is $2 and a half million.
As of today, your -- your executive summary says that we had
161 work orders when this was written. As of today, we have about
453, so that's jumped quite a bit.
The thing that's a little bit problematic today as we talk about this
is that we have estimates on about 54 of those. Your facilities staff,
Page 43
._-~.~
November 29,2005
your utilities staff, your transportation staff, and those folks are doing
a great job trying to get estimates and invoices and things from
vendors. But as you know, that can be a lengthy process, and that's
where we are right now.
We anticipate that we will reach the $2 and a half million limit
based upon the volume that we're seeing and once we process the
claims that corne through the fund. Ifwe do not reach that 2 and a
half million limit, we will return those funds back to reserves. And we
specifically budget reserves for this purpose, for a catastrophic loss
every year in this fund.
By moving these funds into the property casualty claims fund,
what will happen is it will allow us to more efficiently process
payments to vendors. It will also enable us to efficiently process
FEMA reimbursements, because FEMA is going to ask for an
accounting; in other words, was this run through your insurance fund
before we will reimburse it. And that will enable us to move that
process along as we do this.
One other point. We will be using vendors that have been
approved by the board under existing contracts by your purchasing
department. We go through the purchasing staff for those types of
purchases, so we can assure the board that we will not be spending
money on vendors who are not approved by the Board of
Commissioners.
Finally, we will provide to you a report at the end of this process
where we will tell you exactly what we spent money on and give you
an accounting for that at the end of it.
That's all I have for now, and I'd be glad to answer questions if
you have any.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, it's my understanding --
and parks and rec., maybe Marla can help me out -- that we had a
recent completed building or a building that's like two years old that
Page 44
~._~_..~.
November 29, 2005
lost roof material. And is this a part of the claim, or are we going after
the contractor who completed -- who did the work?
MR. WALKER: It is both. We will -- we will make sure that
that claim is processed. And then if we pay it in the interest of getting
it completed timely, we will subrogate against that contractor. I'm
aware of that situation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. Motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion by the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in -- Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to make sure, as
you go through this process, you are working with the Clerk of Courts,
right?
MR. WALKER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So they give their nod of
approval before anything's paid, right?
MR. WALKER: We work with the Clerk of Courts in terms of
our insurance fund. They have to approve funds that are transmitted
into that claims fund. They are given copies of those invoices, if you
will, or those transmittals that move the funds into that claims fund so
it will be paid, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure that they
were a part of this whole thing.
MR. WALKER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 45
_.'" -'-'"""-,._,,
November 29,2005
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 passes unanimously.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
Item #10G
FDEP COST SHARE CONTRACT - $6,321,752.00 - FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND MONITORING OF THE CITY OF
NAPLES/COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT
PROJECT NO. 905271 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOG, and
that's to recommend approval of the attached Florida Department of
Environmental Protection cost share contract which is six million,
three hundred twenty-one thousand, seven hundred fifty-two thousand
(sic) for the construction and monitoring of the City of Naples/Collier
County beach renourishment, project number 905271, and Mr. Gary
McAlpin, your senior project manager for all beach-related items, will
present.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you. For the record, Gary McAlpin,
Coastal Projects.
The item that you have in front of you is really a good news
story . We have been -- it is a contract with Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, a cost share contract, for $6.3 million.
Page 46
"..,._---..",,,-,',",',, "."""-'~-"_',-.,-~-~
November 29, 2005
Over the past year, we have been working with FDEP to
maximize the -- for them to provide cost share revenues for us on our
major renourishment.
This is for the construction phase of the project and also for the
monitoring phase of the proj ect. We will be bringing to you the
additional phase of the project, which will be the reef, the reef design,
our construction management proposal, and other design activities.
So at this point in time, we're looking for your approval of this
contract for FDEP to provide the funds for us on our renourishment.
While I also have the podium here, I just wanted to quickly go
through our schedule for this project. As you can remember, we're
going to put about 660,000 cubic yards of sand on the beaches. We're
going to start our mobilization in December of this year. We'll follow
that in January with the placement of sand on the Vanderbilt Beach
and the Ritz-Carlton.
In the end of January, January 25th, we'll renourish the Pelican
Bay beaches. We'll follow that in February by Parkshore, and we'll do
Naples, which is the largest renourishment we will do, starting on
March 3rd.
Our sand source is from Captiva, which is about 40 miles away.
We'll use hopper dredges to bring it -- the sand to our beaches. We
will screen the sand on the hoppers so there will be no rocks on the
beach. There will also be no shells. For our -- some of our shellers,
that will be bad news.
We will use -- the barges will be parked off shore about five
miles. We'll use pump-out stations and inline booster pumps to get the
sand to the beach.
This operation will be 24 hours, seven days a week. We will
have a significant aggressive public information program that gets the
right information out to the boaters and the citizens so that they can
stay informed on our progress and the work areas.
I'm looking for approval of the contract, which will offset the
Page 47
November 29,2005
funds that the CAC and TDC have to provide.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala, and
question by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe I read in the agenda that
the total project is going to be probably around $19 million dollars; is
that correct?
MR. McALPIN: The total project will probably be closer to $23
million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Twenty-three.
MR. McALPIN: The construction phase is going to be 18 and a
half. And we'll have monitoring, we'll have an artificial reef, we'll
have construction monitor after that. So it will bring the whole project
up to about $23 and a half million. And you have already approved
the project several months ago.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Gary, you're talking about screening the
sand when it's placed into the dredgers to be hauled to the site for
pumpIng.
MR. McALPIN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is the size of the screen that you're
going to be using?
MR. McALPIN: The screen will occupy one cell of the barge.
The barge typically has six cells, so we'll have a horizontal -- excuse
me -- an inclined screen that's a vibrating screen on the barge. Don't
know the exact size. We'll deal with the specifics on that. But we'll
vertically -- but we'll vibrate and screen all the sand on the barges.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The size of the screening is very
important if you want to eliminate rocks on the beach.
Page 48
.. ._--<"._.,.~_._>-,-
November 29, 2005
MR. McALPIN: The size of the screen opening, if that's what
you're looking at, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. McALPIN: Yes. The size of the screen opening will be a
half inch, and that's what we're looking to do. So any material that's
over that will be eliminated, obviously the rocks and any shell hash
material.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we could conceivably have
rocks and/or shell that's a half inch?
MR. McALPIN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And do you have any idea from
monitoring the source what the percentage of half-inch material really
is?
MR. McALPIN: The source is very clean. We've done a number
of core borings on the source. It's a tom seal (sic). It's a uniform grain
size. When we did it, there was practically no rock or shell hash
material there, so we feel very comfortable that this will take care of
it.
And we also are going to visually inspect on the barge and also at
the pump station and on the beach. So if we see ourselves getting into
a problem, we can move to another area of our borrow area. So that's
not a problem. We have more than enough borrow area and sand
source to provide the 660,000 yards.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The last time when we got into trouble
was rocks on the beach. The problem started whenever the -- when
the dredging company got outside the designated borrow area.
Now, do we have observers on the beach and in the water with
the barges and the dredges, or do we have them only in one place?
MR. McALPIN: We have -- we will have observers on the
beach. But the other thing at the barge, the barge will be connected
via Internet, and we'll be monitoring that at all times. So we'll know
exactly where the cutter head is, the position of the cutter head as it
Page 49
.¥..~._------,
November 29, 2005
cuts, so we'll know the XY coordinates and also the Z coordinates on
there. So we'll be able to tell exactly where it is and how deep it's
cutting. And that will be real-time monitoring that we will do. And
then we'll monitor that in two places, at the engineer's office and also
at our office.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you.
We have a motion on the floor. 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, Gary.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
Item #10H
DISCUSSION TO ACCEPT HENDERSON CREEK DRIVE AS A
PUBLIC ROAD - MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION NOT TO ACCEPT HENDERSON CREEK
DRIVE AS A PUBLIC ROAD - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item, Commissioners, is 10H. It's a
recommendation to discuss accepting Henderson Creek Drive as a
public road. And as you remember correctly, this was a public petition
that was brought forward by a Mr. Reed last meeting, I believe.
And Mr. Norman Feder, your transportation services
administrator, will present.
Page 50
--~......_...- '_._._.....__.,,-_.~-,--
November 29, 2005
MR. FEDER: I'll try to be brief. What I do need to tell you is
that Henderson Creek Drive is a private roadway. There was some
note that there's a quitclaim deed to give it over to the county. We can
find nothing in the records that that was ever accepted by the county
nor anything specifically to accept operations and maintenance.
It appears that quite some time ago there was some county work
done through George Archibald, I assume with the board direction, on
the roadway, but nothing since that time in the way of operations and
maintenance.
I've given you some more material on this. There's been a
number of correspondence over time. We've looked at it. The
drainage for the roadway itself, Henderson Creek Drive is operating
pretty efficiently. When we evaluated the issue that got raised then, it
would be very expensive for very minimal additional benefit to do
something with the drainage.
We've looked at the roadway condition itself. It's only about an
inch thick. It has more of a shell base, and sand, and a lot of sand. It's
not an item that would meet any of our standards both in the drainage
nor the roadway pavement condition.
Being a private road, if we were to take this issue on at the
direction of the board, we subject ourselves to setting a precedent with
many others. It has no interconnectivity to any areas, so we're
concerned about the issue of public purpose. And our
recommendation is that we not accept it for maintenance, we work
with the community if they desire to do something in an MSTU.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think you touched on it. About
how many residents does this affect in the Henderson Creek area?
MR. FEDER: It is the Holiday Inn (sic) mobile manor there, and
I don't know exactly how many homesites are in that area, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. This isn't permanent
residents? This basically is just transient people then, isn't it?
Page 51
...-.......-
. ._,..- "_"·.o_,,__,~~_,_,
November 29, 2005
MR. FEDER: No. This is a permanent residence area. It is a
community that's only about two feet elevation. It's historically had
drainage and flooding problems that wouldn't be resolved by us taking
on simply Henderson Creek Drive, but it is a residential area in the
county .
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Well, I guess, like you
brought up, the best thing would be to formulate an MSTU there to
take care of that particular problem since it is all private.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have to -- I agree with
you even though I understand the plight that they're going through. It
is an uncomfortable thing living on a substandard road, and we have
numerous ones in Collier County that are substandard, but they're not
county roads.
If we did something here, we would have to go back and revisit
hundreds of other roads that are out there that are private roads. I do
hope the day comes -- I don't know when it will be -- that we can
corne up with some sort of formula that will allow these people to get
into an MSTU with a more expedient matter than what it is today. It's
a very difficult, long process. I've got some organizations that have
been working on it for four years now. They still haven't resolved it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A few years ago I used to walk
Henderson Creek to get to the school bus, and some of the times in the
summertime you used to have to take off your shoes and socks to -- so
they didn't get wet. I'm going to approve -- make a motion to approve
staffs recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the staff recommendations __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Staffs recommendation is?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't do anything.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
Page 52
November 29, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is not to accept it, right? Okay.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of accepting the staff
recommendation not to accept ownership and responsibility for
Henderson Creek Road -- Drive, 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 #101
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD WORK ORDER CDM-FT-
3785-06-01 TO CAMP DRESSER MCKEE, INC.,
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR TWO NEW
POTABLE WATER AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY
(ASR) WELLS AT THE CARICA ROAD WATER FACILITIES
SITE IN THE AMOUNT OF $381,340, PROJECT 70897-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is number 10I, and
that's previously 16C 1, and that is a recommendation to award work
order CDM-FT-3785-06-01, to Camp Dresser McKee, Inc.,
Professional Engineering Services for two new potable water aquifer
storage and recovery ASR wells at the Carico Road water facility site
Page 53
November 29, 2005
in the amount of $381,340.
And Mr. Roy Anderson and Pete Schalt -- Roy Anderson's your
Director of Engineering, and Pete Schalt's one of Senior Project
Managers over in utilities -- will present.
MR. SCHAL T: Good morning, Commissioners. Peter Schalt,
Public Utilities Engineering.
This item was formerly on the consent agenda, and it was pulled
and put on the regular agenda to read several corrections into the
record.
The corrections to be read are as follows: It's to rectify a $60
error within the document itself. It does not, however, change the
bottom line of the work order.
The first correction is on the work order itself, page number 1,
task H, under the compensation section. It changes $10,280 to 10,220.
The second change is the scope of services, page 8 of 11, task H.
We need to change time and materials, $10,280 to time and materials,
$10,220.
And the final change is the scope of services, page 10 of 11.
Under the compensation section, we need to change $176,720 to
$176,780; we need to change $204,620 to $204,560; and we need to
remove the wording, without further approval from the county; and
the last change is to change the $10,280 to $10,220, and that will
rectify the $60 error.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other discussion by the board
members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No speakers.
Page 54
,"-,~,.,.~,
November 29,2005
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 passes unanimously. Thank you.
MR. SCHAL T: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #1 OJ
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS WAIVE COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND
APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH JAMES LEE WITT
ASSOCIATES, LLC (JLWA) AS COORDINATORS OF FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY PUBLIC
ASSISTANCE AND RECOVERY PROGRAM OVERSIGHT
ASSISTANCE FOR HURRICANE WILMA IN THE ESTIMATED
(NOT TO EXCEED) AMOUNT OF $250,000; APPROVE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (HENNING REQUEST)
- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10J, which
was previously 16C4, and that is a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners waive competitive bidding and approve an
agreement with James Lee Witt Associates, LLC (JL W A) as
coordinators of the Federal Emergency Management Agency public
assistance and recovery program oversight assistance for Hurricane
Wilma in the estimated not-to-exceed amount of $250,000, and
Page 55
- ,-.^~.,-_...-,-,,----.~-...,,-
November 29,2005
approve necessary budget amendments.
And Mr. Torn Wides, your Director of Operations at Public
Utilities, will present.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, good morning. For the record,
again, Tom Wides, Public Utilities Operations Director.
The intent of this exec. summary is to engage James Lee Witt
Associates, and the recommendation first, if I may, is that the Board of
the Commissioners waive the competitive bidding process and
approve an agreement with James Lee Witt as coordinators of FEMA
public assistance and recovery oversight and assistance for Hurricane
Wilma.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we comment on that part first?
MR. WIDES: Yes. If there are any questions, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I checked with the
clerk's office yesterday -- I really appreciate Jim Mudd, by the way,
getting onto this thing immediately and arranging communication
between all departments.
And this morning when I spoke with the Clerk of Court's office,
they were very comfortable with that and with the company that's
going to be doing this. They felt that we looked far and wide and we
found the proper company. So I feel comfortable with that now with
their approval.
MR. WIDES: Very good. Are there any other questions I may
respond to, or would you rather me proceed with our presentation?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you need to explain to the public
and to the Board of County Commissioners why you are doing this
without a competitive procurement.
MR. WIDES: Okay. Let me take you to our next slide, which is
the purpose of this agreement. We estimate that the total recovery
cost related to Wilma is going to be approximately $40 million. That
includes both debris removal and wastewater department recovery
Page 56
_.~_^,.. .'_"'" ·_"···~··"'·N_<",....· _'.....
November 29, 2005
efforts, et cetera. There's about four or five items that are in there.
Our intent is to maximize, optimize, our reimbursement from
FEMA. I should say at this point we have worked very well, very
closely with the FEMA folks, and there are always outstanding issues
that need to be resolved at a higher level. We have continued to write
various letters back and forth, making sure everything we do is within
FEMA guidelines.
However, we have experienced here and in other -- and based on
experiences in other states, that there are times where issues arise that
may require as much as an appeal process. That's where we feel that
James Witt and Associates are the experts in helping us to navigate
through any FEMA issues, and that's where we really expect to get the
greatest benefit.
In order to get that benefit, we feel we need to bring them in now
into -- into our networks so they can understand what we are doing
and have a good feel if appeal issues or other issues arise with FEMA
that they can help us with, rather than trying to bring them in at the
very last minute.
So, again, the reason we're asking for the waiving of the
competitive bid is to get them onboard now as we're working through
the process and get them ready to respond for us as we need them.
And again, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, let me just pursue that a moment,
Tom. I think I understand what you're trying to do, but surely you had
in mind from the very beginning that you wanted to get maximum
reimbursement from FEMA. Why suddenly do we have to have a
noncompetitive procurement in order to do that?
MR. WIDES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay? I need to think, is this the only
person that is available? Is this the person who has had the greatest
amount of success, and that's why we're waiving competitive
procurement? But we need to have a good reason for waiving
Page 57
,.. _._,,-""-._,.>-~,,- "-_."~
November 29,2005
competitive procurement that goes beyond the fact that perhaps we
just now thought about having somebody to help us. Okay?
MR. WIDES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right?
MR. WIDES: I think we have some help that can answer your
question for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good morning. Dan
Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services, your
Emergency Management Director or record.
Please allow me a minute just to shed a little bit of light on this.
It had been one of the ongoing proj ects or efforts, if you will, to have a
disaster contractor on standby with us. And again, competing with
other hurricanes and other efforts that we had done, working with Mr.
DeLony's team, for example, pre-event contracting with debris,
pre-event contracting with generators, the other programs that we've
had, we've always wanted to have a disaster consultant onboard.
But having that effort notwithstanding, a couple of things that are
very important that I need you to be aware of. First of all, one of the
advantages of having James Lee Witt & Associates, bar none in terms
of qualification, is that the exact gentleman who wrote the rules for
appeal, wrote the rules for precedent setting and reimbursement is now
the principal of this organization. So the fact that he knows that
system is IONA.
Secondly, please be aware that we are competing with a very
fluid organization right now; FEMA in terms of Department of
Homeland Security, competing with other disaster events. There are
already five other presidentially-declared disasters now in the hopper
beyond Hurricane Wilma.
So you have such a project -- you have so many project teams
from FEMA spread so thin that without the James Lee Witt's history
and their ability to research precedents on any appeals or anything that
Page 58
November 29, 2005
can't be reimbursed for us, James Lee Witt & Associates is
unprecedented in having that research and that availability.
There are also a number of other consulting firms out there that
have different areas of expertise, but disaster reimbursement is not one
of them. This -- without a doubt, this group is key. I have used them
-- I used them last year on a small project helping me with the after
action report of Hurricane Charley.
Their work for us was first-class. I was pleased with the process
and fact that they had the local government expertise. Very few of the
big engineering and consulting firms that, quote, do disaster, don't
have the local government expertise to be a strong advocate for us.
So time is of the essence in terms of any -- managing that
financial process as quickly as we can, any appeal process we need to
get in, because if you're the last in, you're the last out. So having this
to help us expedite anything that we need through the FEMA channels
is really a big cost benefit for Collier County.
MR. MUDD: Dan, could you also relate to the board what issues
we're running through right now with canal debris removal so that
they have a better idea of what's going on in that particular arena? If
you want to talk about a mushy area, that's one of them too.
MR. SUMMERS: I will. And you said that very well. I was just
going to say I'm losing hair instead of hair turning color over canal
Issues.
I'll give you a perfect example of that, is this year the U.S.
Department of Agriculture has not been funded for disaster relief since
Hurricane Charley, and that includes canal programs, migrant housing,
farm aid programs, hopefully some of that disaster relief funding will
come up in Congress when they resume after holiday break.
But as an example, just to maneuver, administratively get the
paperwork lined up for FEMA to authorize Collier County
reimbursement for cleaning of canals is an arduous process because so
many hurdles have to be met to demonstrate to FEMA -- and again,
Page 59
'"'____.0".·._o_
November 29, 2005
it's because of their requirements from OMB in Congress -- but to
demonstrate to them that we have that need for canal cleaning which
affects drainage, which affects public health, which affects commerce.
So FEMA is the bottom of the funding chain in so many
resources or so many applications. So we need this extra type of
expertise to speed this process along as it becomes necessary.
Because the longer we wait in getting that process approved, the
longer it takes to get work done and, again, exponentially how much
longer it takes for us to get reimbursed. So their expertise and time
will really streamline the process and will be very cost beneficial.
MR. MUDD: If I could add just one thing. We went to FEMA
first on, how do we clean out these canals and how do I get the
stormwater issues and everything else resolved from the trees that
have fallen in areas that are kind of no man's land but are very
instrumental in Collier County, either from a boater aspect on from
stormwater passing through the county.
We were told, FEMA's not going to do it. You go to USDA, go
to the NRCS. We went to the NRCS who basically funded the canal
cleanup for Charlotte County during Hurricane Charley, and that's
why, you know, we were using their model.
And then we went and said, no, their pockets are empty. They
didn't get funded or they didn't get their pockets filled up after
Charley. So now we're back into the FEMA side of the house who
didn't want to do it originally, and now we've got to fight through that
particular issue. And I'm not too sure we're there yet.
MR. SUMMERS: We're working. We're working that issue
very hard. But again, last in, last out. And the last thing we want __
and I've experienced a process where it took four years to close a
disaster event when we muddled through this on our own, and this is
too much dollar value impact, too many processes, and too many
chances for another hurricane not to march on through.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
Page 60
.<¥O_0"'_'___""""_"'..__
November 29, 2005
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The slide that's now being taken
off the viewer, is the specific scope of this contract is program
management disaster mitigation services and financial analysis and
appeals? Is that it specifically?
MR. WIDES: Those are all within the master contract. In other
words, those are all services that we could select if we so choose or
see a need; however, if -- Mr. Mudd has taken us to the next slide
which will help us understand exactly how we'll execute this contract.
The master is in place subject to your approval today, and it's for
a not-to-exceed $250,000; however, we will issue work orders or task
orders for each specific deliverable that will be -- that we wish to have
performed by Witt & Associates.
So, therefore, we will not be putting $250,000 on the table. We
will be putting individual task orders on the table with specific
deliverables that will be approved by the Clerk of Courts, by
purchasing, and by the County Attorney's Office before they are
issued, and basically within all purchasing guidelines.
Does that answer your question, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think you've done your
best to answer it. The -- I mean, that's kind of adding to the contract.
MR. WIDES: If I may, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MR. WIDES: It's not adding to it. The master contract says we
cannot spend with Witt & Associates, we cannot spend more than
$250,000 in the aggregate, and, therefore, within that 250,000, as a
way recognize specific assignments for them, we will take from that
250- and apply it towards a work order. But once we spend up to 250-
on individual work orders, we can go no farther.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Here's what I understand
about contracts. There is a specific amount not to exceed, and
sometimes there's a contingency upon that. I understand that. But I
Page 61
-.--""'.---...-
November 29, 2005
also understand there are certain deliverables, the scope of, and I also
understand there's a start and a finish.
And when there's ambiguity in it or changes or approvals from a
-- to the Clerk of Court or anybody else beyond the Board of
Commissioners, in my view, that's changes. But here's how we can
rectify it. Can we bring back something to the Board of
Commissioners so we fully understand what the scope is going to be?
MR. WIDES: Sir, yes, we can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, you stated that it's
a maximum not-to-exceed a quarter of a million dollars.
MR. WIDES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the contract it states the
period that it could be renewed. It's a one-year contract that can be
renewed over the time of four years. Now, is that over a four-year
period, a quarter of a million dollars, or is that a million dollars
potentially?
MR. WIDES: Okay. Sir, what we are asking for is $250,000 for
this event, for this Wilma event.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WIDES: A not-to-exceed for this event.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now the --
MR. MUDD: And the reason it would go for multiple years,
Commissioners, is sometimes FEMA reimbursement takes three years
to four years to get. So if --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You could submit, and it might
take a while --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and you might need to do
some more correspondence and that?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. As far as the appeal process is concerned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you feel comfortable in the
rate schedule of the payment for hourly basis for everybody from the
Page 62
>'·__··_···"_"^___~_W_,,_'.__
November 29, 2005
principal down to the debris specialist, that that is fair and equitable?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, we have reviewed each of those
assignments, each of those rates, okay . We have reviewed them with
two other cities to see that we were getting the same basis for in -- or
for payment, which, in fact, City of Orlando and Kissimmee Utility
last year paid the same rates, and the only difference is there is a five
percent, basically COLA adjustment, on top of the rates that were paid
last year.
We've had -- we've done this internally, we've done a review
internally, and we've also had another consultant take a look at this
independently and look at other counties to see that these were fair.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you've addressed all my
concerns. And as long as we're corning back to fully understand what
the scope is, I don't have a problem with what we're doing today.
Thank you.
MR. WIDES: Okay. Commissioner, if I may clarify one thing
with you. Now, are you requesting that we bring each work order
back to you, no matter the dollar amount?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to understand the
contract, what all the scopes are going to be. And I understand it's
going to be hard to assess that right now and say, well, they're going to
do A, B, and C. Oh, by the way, we forgot X, Y, and Z if we could
bring X, Y, and Z back and say, okay, this is part of their scope.
MR. DeLONY: Let me see if I can help. My name is Jim
DeLony. I'm Public Utilities Administrator.
The scope of work for the services that we're asking for from the
Witt Associates is listed in the executive summary. We will not get
outside that scope in terms of our needs in my assessment.
Should we need to get outside that scope, to my right here is Mr.
Carnell, and we will come back to this board with a request for
additional scope of services if we need it.
Those four or five items that are listed in your executive
Page 63
November 29,2005
summary, though somewhat broad, sir -- and I agree that this is
somewhat vague, but that's the game we're in right now. I believe it
covers -- and I've got Mr. -- Dan here behind me here. We believe this
covers the scope of work that we need from James Lee Witt
Associates from this particular event and for the appeals process that
is going to be so critical to this event.
So with that, and using our established procurement rules, we
would be issuing those work orders or those task orders as listed with
the review of the people on the previous chart.
Does that cover your concerns, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've answered my questions.
Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, and then
we're going to vote on this and take a break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Very good. Yes, I would
just like to make a suggestion, as long as this has been brought up, that
maybe in the future when we're working on these contracts -- there
aren't construction contracts, but you know other contracts such as
this, rather than have any questions, because we'd like to see it just
come to us and all questions answered. Maybe we can have the
county attorney and our purchasing department and clerk's office work
together on each one of these things to make sure we answer all these
questions in advance.
MR. DeLONY: If I may, ma'am, that's exactly how this contract
was formulated. We had the Clerk of Court's review, we had the
County Attorney's Office review, Mr. Carnell and his staff was in the
dead middle of this from day one.
And that is exactly our process, and I'm glad I have a chance to
explain that to you. I don't bring anything to this board if I can't -- if I
can get the clerk and other people to join our project delivery team
before it comes to you. I don't know of an exception to that since I've
Page 64
~"..<._...,,""~,-~.._^
November 29,2005
been here.
Now, there may have been some where I may not have touched
all the bases that someone wanted me to touch. And I think in this
case, we had a review by one member of the clerk's team, and then
another member decided there might be a few other things that we
need to take a look at, and that's fair and that's reasonable, and I
believe we've accommodated that. But certainly, ma'am, that is our
intent and purpose in project delivery in public utilities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, I hope you've got a
motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any public --
MS. FILSON: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public speakers.
Any further comments by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposition, by like sign?
(No response.)
Page 65
November 29, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously, and we're going
to take a 21-minute break. We'll be back here at 10 -- well, it will be a
10-minute break now. It's 10:40 now. We'll be back here at 10:50. Is
that enough? Okay.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item #10K
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE DISASTER DEBRIS REMOVAL CONTRACT #05-3661
WITH ASHBRITT, INC. TO MODIFY THE EXISTING FEE
SCHEDULE IN APPENDIX B AND ESTABLISH A CRADLE TO
GRAVE PRICE STRUCTURE OF $25.00 PER CUBIC YARD -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to item number--
MR. MUDD: 10K.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- 10K, which was previously 16C3.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And that's a recommendation to approve
an amendment to the disaster debris removal contract number 05-3661
with AshBritt, Inc., to modify the existing fee schedule in Appendix
B, and establishing cradle to grave price structure of $25 per cubic
yard. And Mr. Tom Wides, your director of operations for public
utilities division, will present.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, again, thank you for your time.
As has been noted, this is concerning modification of our existing
agreement with AshBritt.
Page 66
November 29, 2005
Our recommendation to the board is, in fact, that we have
approval of the amendment to the existing fee schedule, okay, that is
in the contract with AshBritt, and authorize the county manager or his
designees to execute the amendment, okay, subj ect to final FEMA
approval, and I'll discuss that with you in a moment.
The public purpose is that, in fact, on June 14th of 2005 we
brought to the board a resolution of an RFP process where three
vendors were selected as potential debris removal contractors, and
AshBritt was one of those.
The AshBritt fee schedule in the existing contract includes
multiple prices, as did all the -- as did all the respondents, prices for
things such as the actual debris removal for different mileages, okay,
might be five to 10 miles, or a different rate for longer mileages.
Hauling, disposal, but all that depended on the miles hauled, okay.
The other thing that was in that existing fee schedule is hazardous
stump price removals, a separate fee, okay. And really what we found
in those fees, that once we started talking to FEMA, they found those
fees for the stump removal to be high. Now, it wasn't to say they
would disallow them, but they were going to become problematic in
terms of how big is the stump, how much time, how much equipment
it took to take the stumps out.
What happened within the last month or so, AshBritt has corne
back to us, based on their recent experience in other areas, and we
have examples of that. But they've corne back to us with a cradle to
grave price. That is $25 per cubic yard, whether they're picking up
stumps or they're picking up normal debris, whether they're hauling it
five miles or 30 miles to one of our disposal sites, and it also includes
a final grinding and haul out, okay.
Now, what we did, as soon as we got that offer, okay, we said,
well, obviously what's in it for everyone here? Why do you bring this
to us? They had found with FEMA recently that FEMA has been
much more receptive to a cradle to grave price rather than what
Page 67
November 29, 2005
they've been in the recent past.
We, in fact, went out to our independent contractors and asked
for their discussion of what seems to be a reasonable price for this
type of cradle to grave approach.
In addition to that, we talked to FEMA. FEMA has given us
verbal approval to modify this fee structure; however, we are still
waiting pending discussion here in terms of a written formal
agreement. And these are the types of things that, you know,
depending on when that comes, I hate to reference back to a previous
discussion, but here's where Witt might become important to us over
time.
The fiscal impact is, we're assuming and what we did -- I
shouldn't say we're assuming. We estimated that with approximately
1.2 million cubic yards of debris, that the existing fee schedule would
cost us about 20 -- excuse me -- about $30 dollars plus per cubic yard.
The cradle to grave is $25 per cubic, and it will -- we believe will
save us here in the county, and even more so the federal taxpayers,
approximately $6 million.
The county specifically will save 750,000, which is -- which is
our portion of the nonreimbursable, as far as FEMA's concerned.
And, again, if I can say that a little differently, FEMA is -- agreed that
they will pay 75 percent of the debris removal cost. The other two
pieces are 12 and a half for the state -- 12 and a half for the state, and
12 and a half percent for the county, of which would be approximately
$750,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WIDES: If there are any questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions by commissioners?
Commissioner Coletta, you wanted to pull this. Do you have any
questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear from the speaker
that we have.
Page 68
November 29, 2005
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bob
Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you, Commissioner Coletta. Thank
you, Board, for hearing this -- this item. Thank you, Commissioner
Coletta, for bringing it on the agenda.
Essentially the reason I was interested in hearing from the
presenters is that this is an item that was identified earlier as a $40
million expense to the American taxpayers. A great deal of that -- or a
small part of that being paid by Collier County residents.
And this particular item seems to be a great move in the right
direction. It's a savings of maybe 20 percent or so, or 25 percent
against what was originally identified, you know. And I was just
wondering why it was that the evaluation and comparisons to other
counties in this cradle to grave strategy wasn't used originally, but
apparently it's been mentioned that this wasn't looked on favorably by
FEMA at first, like several months ago.
But I noticed in the documentation that when AshBritt wrote to
the county with the new proposal -- that it says that these are changes
that must be made to comply with the recent FEMA position. So it's
good to hear it explained why -- why this savings is going to be
realized.
I also had questions of the removal -- about the removal of the
white goods, which we are contracted out to have that service
provided by Waste Management. But am I correct that -- I might ask
Mr. Wides this. Am I correct in understanding that the white goods
picked up under this contract would be those resulting from hurricane
damage and not your regular every day-to-day operation? I see heads
shaking yes, so that answers my question there as well.
And -- so I guess this is fine. And, you know, I appreciate your
looking at this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I always feel more comfortable when the
Page 69
November 29, 2005
full board -- and the presentation's made and the full board gets to
review it and ask questions, and the public can ask questions as well.
Thank you, again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner -- motion for approval by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Henning, you had a question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just like to add to that. I had
concerns about abuse of yard waste picking up by some members of
the public, and the county manager assured me that this company is
doing its best so that we don't have abuse of the taxpayers dollars, and
that's very important. So I'm going to support the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Commissioner, if I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion on the floor for
approval.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay.
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.
MR. WIDES: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item # lOA
Page 70
November 29, 2005
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSERVATION COLLIER
CONTRACTING WITH A PRIVATE, NON-PROFIT GROUP AS
AN INTERMEDIARY BUYER FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD
SECTION 24 PROPERTY. (JOE SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT) MOTION TO DENY
RECONSIDERATION - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, we have an 11 o'clock time
certain, and that is item lOA, and that is a recommendation to consider
the following issues associated with Conservation Collier contracting
with a private nonprofit group as an intermediary buyer for the School
Board Section 24 property, and Ms. Alex Sulecki, who is your
program manager for Conservation Collier, will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, you want to
make a comment before the presentation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, thank you. The
intent of the reconsideration by the board, my intent was to try to
maximize the purchasing power for Conservation Collier, as we know
that this property will go into sending lands. As you know, there will
be availability of TDRs, and the growth management plan and the
ordinance prohibits governments from owning TDRs.
I would like -- since the advisory board recommended purchasing
these -- this land, I would hope that we can do that.
I also hope that we can give direction to our staff to do whatever
other growth management plan amendments and ordinances so that we
can own TDRs, sell those TDRs, put that money back into
Conservation Collier so it can be used either for maintenance or
purchasing of more land. And I know that -- including all the TDR
provisions and not limiting it to deeding the property over to
government, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is the reason that the government
Page 71
November 29, 2005
is not permitted to own TDRs? Did we just write it that way?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or is there a legal requirement
otherwise?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you wrote it that way, and the
intent at the time it was done -- and Bill's going to help me here
because he was around when we were doing that.
There was some fears that we would -- we, the government --
would -- I've got to think of a word that's clean -- that we would
manipulate the system so that the TDRs would devalue and the rights
of the property owners that were in sending lands -- or we would --
that we would manipulate the system so that we would overinflate or
that we would devalue the values of the TDRs for the people, the
private owners of the sending land. Bill?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, sir.
For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director.
And there's two places where that discussion came up. One is on the
growth management plan when we were going through the final order
amendments and developing the whole program, and that's where it
was written in where only the private sector were to be able to obtain
the TDRs in terms of private ownership.
There was another location where the discussion carne to be, and
that was in the drafting and adoption of the Conservation Collier
ordinance itself. And I know that there -- I know Brad Cornell is here,
and he may recall this, and I know the County Attorney's Office had
some work with it where the initial draft ordinance was developed
such that the -- such that Conservation Collier would not be involved
in purchasing TD Rs because there was a concern, again, that there
would be some type of manipulation when that program was being
developed.
So the discussion happened in two places. Obviously if the
board's policy -- if the board chooses to take another policy direction,
Page 72
November 29,2005
then that's -- then obviously that's the board's discretion to do that.
But those were the two areas that I'm familiar with.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Before going to Commissioner
Halas and Commissioner Coletta, they have questions, but let me
clarify something.
I can understand how the public and landowners in general would
be concerned if the government were to start buying TDRs. But
buying property that is entitled to TDRs is an entirely different issue.
Now, is there -- are we confusing those two in any way in our --
our ordinances? Are we saying that a government can't buy property
that is entitled to TDRs and then dispose of them? Or are we saying in
our ordinances that the county can't purchase TDRs?
MR. LORENZ: In the growth management plan, it indicates that
TDRs can only be generated from a property owner -- from a private
property owner.
So in the growth management plan itself, if the county or if the
government were to -- were to own property within sending lands, the
government does not have the TDRs that are associated with that
property that a private owner would have, and that's in the growth
management plan in the future land use element.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I see it on the screen now. It
actually refers to the property owners transferring density, and it says,
private property owners may transfer density or TDRs to receiving
lands.
It doesn't say anything about the government not being able to
sell TDRs to private property owners that the -- from property that the
government might own. And I'm just wondering if we really are
overreaching this particular ordinance.
But Commissioner Halas, I'll go to you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm looking for guidance from the
county attorney. Maybe they can give us some more guidance on this.
MR. WEIGEL: Sure.
Page 73
November 29, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think that the government is
in business to buy TDRs. Maybe you can give us some guidance on
this, please.
MR. WEIGEL: I'd be happy to, Commissioner Halas. Thank
you for the question.
You're right. By policy, by ordinance, that implements policy,
the board is not in -- is not in the position to buy TDRs. But we must
remember that with this particular agenda item, the property in
question is one owned by a governmental entity presently, and
additionally is a neutral land. It does not have TDRs.
And so before it would become a land, call it problematic or
visionary to use the TDR aspect to save taxpayer money is the fact
that this land would have to be transformed by a local government
board regulatory process to redefine as sending lands, which it is not
right now.
And if the county owns, currently under the laws as Alex and Bill
mentioned, we cannot have TDRs to sell.
So it would require a process before ownership on land that
already has a link to Collier County by a previous agreement
authorized that I think would be a bit problematic to go forward.
I think the exercise on this property is more difficult than it might
be on others, but the concept of the board directing staff to look at its
ordinances and growth management plan to corne up with a copacetic
arrangement where by policy there is no question or issue of
manipulation and a potential ability to have the, call it the fruits of
saving money for the acquisition for the good cause of Conservation
Collier is something that might be achieved.
And so if the board, you know, were to continue along that line
and give the staff direction, we'd be looking to bring back a report to
you and advise you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, from what I heard, I'd make a
motion that this remain in neutral lands.
Page 74
November 29, 2005
MR. WEIGEL: Actually, Commissioner, the question before the
board is not -- this is not a time where we could change it. That would
take a significant legislative process, quasijudicial process potentially
as well.
But the question for the board today is merely one of
reconsideration of a prior approval which was the approval of a
contract to purchase from the school board.
And if the board in its reconsideration were to determine that it
wanted to throw out that prior vote, then the other issues corne into
play such as who's going to -- what's going to happen to the property
in the meantime before the county takes whatever action it mayor
may not take to change its local regulations pertaining to TDRs.
And that, I think, is what Alex in her executive summary was
indicating to the board, was that if the board were to reject the contract
that already exists and had already been approved, we're placed in a
position of working through an intermediary whom we don't even
have identified to my knowledge at the present time -- the TPL has
indicated that they were not interested, is what I'm understanding, and
correct me if that's not correct on the record.
So this particular project is really before the board more purely
on reconsideration today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, I need to go back to
Commissioner Henning just so that I can understand the -- his desires
with respect to reconsideration.
Commissioner Henning, I understand and support your idea that
we need to clarify this ordinance so that if we should purchase
property, we should get the TDRs associated with it. But with this
particular circumstance, are you suggesting that we -- we should
reconsider the prior purchase approval that we made, or are you
interested in having us take a look at the ordinance to make sure that
we remove this ambiguity?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually two things,
Page 75
November 29, 2005
Commissioner. Purchase this property.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Recognize there is a value and a
benefit to the public on this particular property, because we already
gave direction we don't want to buy any property with TDRs on it.
But with that said, it's a public benefit that we recognize and try
to strip off the potential future TDRs on this piece of property. Any
monies that we receive, put that back in Conservation Collier for
purchase or maintenance of properties that we have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think there might be a problem with
sequence in that process, because if we give them -- give them
approval to go ahead with the purchase, that is not reconsider it, to go
ahead with the purchase, then we would have to schedule a public
hearing on redesignation of the property to create any TDRs that
might fall through --
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, you're going to do that during the
EAR, and that's in the springtime. That -- all of section 24 is up for
public hearing, okay, to see if you're going to rezone that from neutral
to sending, okay? That is going to happen. That was part of your
EAR process that you've already talked about. So that hearing and
everything else will be. This is part of section 24, or is section 24.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand.
MR. MUDD: So that's going to happen in the springtime, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the problem is, if they buy it
now without TDRs --
MR. MUDD: It doesn't have any TDRs on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know that, and now there won't be any.
But now we rezone it sometime in the future in the springtime, and
there are TDRs then.
MR. MUDD: No. There are no TDRs until you change the
growth management plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, isn't that what we're going to do in
Page 76
November 29, 2005
the springtime?
MR. MUDD: If you direct us to, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's the question, I think.
MR. MUDD: You aren't directing us to change the growth
management plan to do this in the springtime. I believe it will take
longer than that.
MR. LORENZ: And Mr. Chair, there would be two directions
that you would have to give staff. One would be to designate the area
as sending lands, and secondly to allow for TDRs to be generated
from public properties. So you would have to actually give those two
directions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that what you have in mind,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I think that we can make
it happen, and I think the board here, individually and collectively,
believes in the program. And let's try to get the bang for the buck.
MR. LORENZ: And Mr. Chair, I have to add another item, and
I'm kind of looking for David also here to verify this. In the
Conservation Collier ordinance as it currently exists, if you purchase
the property now, it extinguishes all future development rights
permanently. So if you purchase this property now, there would not
be that opportunity on this property to generate any TDRs even with
your future direction through the growth management plan process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I wanted --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We can always change our
ordinances.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That's what I wanted to clarify as
far as timing's concerned.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. We don't own this
property at this point in time. We haven't settled the contract. I was
Page 77
November 29,2005
wondering if I could get the representative from the school board to
corne up front.
Ms. Taylor or -- sir, you heard this discussion that's going around
and around and around. Can you shed some light as the owner of the
property or a representative of the owner of property of where this
might be able to go where we could reach the objectives of putting this
into -- well, not -- into Conservation Collier after the fact when we can
change the designation of the land from neutral to sending?
Is that at all possible? I know you have another buyer out there
that's sitting in the wings.
MR. WITHERS: Let me introduce myself. I'm Richard Withers,
the School Board Attorney. Nice to see you all. The answer to your
question is, yeah, we'll work with you on it. We're here today
basically just to try to find out what your intentions are and to assure
you of your cooperation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if we wanted to put this thing
on hold, you wouldn't sell it from underneath us?
MR. WITHERS: No, we won't, as long as you all will sign the
contract, we'll extend the closing date to whatever date suits you, and
that's all we ask.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, is there a
possibility where you can sign a contract now for something with a
later closing date after we could make the changes to the land
development code?
MR. WEIGEL: It's my understanding that the school board as
well as this board subsequently have approved a contract with a fixed
closing date in this. It's possible that both parties, by consensual
agreement, can modify that to the open term as explained by Mr.
Withers. So it's certainly possible.
Our board has approved an agreement that already has specified
term in it. It would seem if you gave an indication today, that under
reconsideration, that you are approving -- and you would be
Page 78
November 29, 2005
reconsidering at this point -- that the agreement is approved but with
this change, then I think it would need to go back to probably the
Collier school board for them to agree on that as well based on Mr.
Withers'representation.
MR. WITHERS: What I would suggest is that you consider
asking your staff, what's the outside date we'd need to make this work,
and we do an amendment and amend the contract. That will be no
problem. We just want to know if you all are committed to buying it
or not. That's why we're here.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the date --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is going down a slippery
slope.
MR. MUDD: The date that we would need to finally close on
this in order to do -- first of all, you have to do the ordinance change,
okay, to the conservation ordinance, so that you change paragraph
number 7 so that the land could have -- could have a development
right, okay? That's the first thing you have to do.
So in order to do that ordinance and be safe, I would say that the
close date that you need from Mr. Withers to go back to the school is,
make it the last day of January 2006 for that particular purpose so that
you can get your ordinance change done, and then when you purchase
the property, it does have a development right if it gets rezoned in the
future.
And then we get into directing staff to do a GMP change to
basically get after the sending lands paragraph that's right there on
page 72 where we can modify that to say private property or public
property .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just wondering. Your
purpose then was to be able to sell these and recoup some money; is
that it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's clarify recoup. But
Page 79
~-_._.~-
November 29, 2005
you're correct. Clarify recoup is, put the money back into
Conservation Collier.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, right. On other land that we
might buy -- this is just -- I'm just throwing this out, you know. It just
popped into my head, so just think about it a little bit.
On other land that we might buy or that might have TDRs on it
and so forth, there might be another thing we could do with it if we
wanted to, and that is to donate it to the -- for the community land
trust, you know, so that they could use those TDRs to build some type
of affordable housing, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, you're having a
workshop, and that might be an agenda item. We already -- in
January of this year, January or February, we gave staff direction not
purchase any properties that had TDRs on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, right. And that's why I'm
saying, if we're readdressing these things if it would be something
you'd even consider. I think it's good idea to workshop. Enough said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, did you
have anything else to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we do have some public
speakers. There's a -- I guess if the board deemed that the language in
the GMP is a glitch and remove the word private out of property
owner, private property owner, would that speed up the process?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. You've got to be very, very careful.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Because there's an awful lot of state-owned
land out there that all of a sudden would have TDRs, and you would
just make --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not a bad thing. That
potentially is not a bad thing. It probably needs to be analyzed to see
how it would affect the property, the private property owners that have
Page 80
__~_, - ~ ~H·"..____>.."._;._
November 29, 2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe it will so dilute the TDR
program that we'll get into a problem with taking on the private lands
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- that are in the sending area, and that's my fear.
And then there's potential court cases.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess the bottom line is,
you'll assist us to get to our goals and objectives.
MR. MUDD: We will narrow that definition down so it covers
this specific area that you want to get at right now but doesn't open up
this great big huge box.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So is it my understanding that what
we're going -- we want to do is basically find someone to buy this
property and then sell-- that person's going to sell off the TDRs, and
then turn around and sell us the property back; is that what I
understand?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. That was the original intent that was __
that was communicated. We had talked to the Trust for Public Lands
to see if they would -- if they would do that because I felt that they
were pretty much a neutral party.
They at first said that they would consider it in a very affirmative
way. On the 6th of November, they started doing -- they started to
waffle on that decision. On the 8th of November, they communicated
back this message that basically said that they couldn't do it.
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner Halas, I'll jump in here. And so
what Jim is indicating is that potentially here, with a delay in the
ultimate purchase of the property from the school board, there would
be no intermediary and potentially, if the board were to revise its own
ordinances, and GMP if necessary, that the board would still be
purchasing directly from the school board, but with the potential to
Page 81
"--., ...."_.~,.~,-,.._.,...._.-
. -,..",.,,~.,,_._,---~,.,
November 29, 2005
receive the property with a status either of or to corne to have TDRs
that could be sold for value for that money to corne back into the
Conservation Collier program.
So there would no outside third-party source whatsoever in that
particular --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My next question is, how was this
established some time ago to be neutral lands?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, there was a -- Jim or Bill may want to
speak at some length, but there was a significant county-wide process
that we had that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. And maybe we need
to --
MR. WEIGEL: -- review section 24 --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- explain why this fell into neutral
lands and not into sending lands at the time when this was discussed.
MR. LORENZ: Yes. This particular section was a point of
debate in discussions by the board during the adoption of the final
order amendments where originally it was proposed as sending
through the public hearing process, and there was some discussion and
debate as to whether it really was sending or not.
The decision by the board at that time was to classify it as
neutral, provide for standards, vegetation retention standards that
would be the equivalent to sending lands, and to do a study to
determine whether or not these areas should be neutral or sending,
which we've done that study and we're bringing that forward through
the EAR-based amendments.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The reason was -- what was
the specific reason for keeping it in neutral? Was it because there was
outside pressure in regards to whether it should be sending lands or
neutral lands?
MR. LORENZ: That's correct, property owner objection.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so the course that I'm
Page 82
.--...-.-
November 29, 2005
going here is, the property owner that owned it, he did not want this to
be sending land?
MR. LORENZ: There was some -- either one property owner or
several property owners that indicated that they did not feel that the
whole section should be sending. The board heard that testimony and
input and carne to the conclusion that it -- that it has that it would be
neutral.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And then after that point in
time, is this when the school board bought that land?
MR. LORENZ: I'm not sure about that history.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'd like to find out what the
history is. After we made that determination, is that when the school
board decided to buy the land, or did they buy it before that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Way before; way, way before.
MR. LORENZ: Well, they only own a small portion of section
24, but I don't know how long that has been in the school board
ownership.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we can find out real
quick.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A long, long time.
MR. WITHERS: I'm thinking '60s or '70s.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So is this just affecting -- we're not
talking just about affecting this land. It's affecting all of section 24; is
that correct?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. Our currently proposed amendment is all
of section 24. Obviously when that information comes to the board
through the EAR process, you're going to hear public input testimony
from a variety of groups. The staff -- the analysis that staff will
present to you, and then it will be your call as to how you want to
handle section 24.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe you'll get for and against
on section 24 being one way or the other. I belief -- I believe you'll
Page 83
---~'^--'"-"'-'---".
November 29, 2005
hear people that they don't want it to go because in sending lands you
can't have golf courses, but in neutral lands you can. I believe you'll
hear that particular call.
I believe you'll hear folks that would like to have development
rights on theirs and keep it in preserves say they want it into sending.
So you're going to -- you're going to get a mixed bag on that, and
that's a future decision you have to make, and you have to make it
with all the information presented, which you do not have today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. One of the considerations
they weighed very heavily on us when we were corning up with
sending lands, neutral lands, and receiving lands was, we didn't want
to overextend the amount of credits that would be available. At the
time we had no idea how many credits were going to be generated or
how many credits people would want.
Since then -- and I don't know if this still proves true today -- and
we would almost need to be able to go through the process to find out.
The amount of credits that are available don't represent the amount of
credits that are actually out there. Not everyone is going to sell them.
There's many reasons for people not to.
Possibly extending this a little bit to include county-owned land
or land that Conservation Collier would come into, I think, might be
an excellent idea to be able to get a bigger bang for your buck, almost
a discount on that price of the land, to be able to use in the future. I'm
note too sure how we arrive at that point, but I think Commissioner
Henning brought up a very good idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't know how in this particular
instance we avoid legitimate charges of manipulation. I don't
understand how the school board wouldn't have a similar complaint
that we're buying it from the school board at a price that is far below
what it would be if it had TDRs attached to it.
Then we're going to buy it at that price, we're going to turn
Page 84
..__._.,-,-"~-,.,,"-,-~--,,-~,,~_.
November 29, 2005
around and attach TDRs to it and make some money on the deal. I
don't understand how we avoid charges of manipulation in this case.
But I think the concept is sound. But to try to do it for this particular
parcel, in my opinion, is really risky.
But I would suggest that what we do is go ahead and encourage
the purchase of this property and not make any decisions or prejudge
the situation with respect to future zoning and the use ofTDRs on it.
And if in our evaluations in the springtime there is scientific evidence
which indicates such should be the case, then we can make a decision.
But I am very, very reluctant to engage in a discussion of these two
things together at today's meeting. I just think it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we're on a slippery slope.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I do too, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas had his light in.
Let me make sure that he's finished, okay. Are you okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make sure that
everybody realizes that as you stated, it looks like there's a possibility
of manipulation. And I just don't feel that we need to get -- journey
down this path. And as I said, I think we're near a slippery slope here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, the
perception of manipulation, there's no question that it's out there. But
if it's in the public's best interest, is that bad?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it is if you look at it, let's say, from
the school district's standpoint. You know, they probably would like
to have some of that money, too, and get some of that -- the benefit for
rezoning that property, and if there is the perception that we are taking
advantage of the situation because we have the zoning authority, that
we can zone it and make money off of it ourselves and thereby
deprive other public agencies from participating in that gain.
But I think that if we were doing this separately from this
Page 85
November 29, 2005
particular parcel, I wholeheartedly support your idea. I think it's a
good idea. But to tie it to this particular parcel, I think, is sort of bad
timing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, that
statement -- actually I think going from neutral to sending is down
zoning. The benefit you have is you have TDRs that could be sold.
And what I see, if we purchase this, I think it was -- let's say it
was a million dollars. I forget what the price was. It was almost $2
million. Let's say that we buy this for $2 million.
Here comes a benefit that -- that you could sell, therefore, in
reality, reducing that actual purchase from $2 million to a half a
million dollars. So you've got $1.5 million of benefit you sold off.
You take that money and put it back into the program. So it's actually
a down zoning.
But manipulation of it, it's not. Some people might look at that.
I see it as how can we -- as stewards of the taxpayers, how can we
benefit the taxpayers? How can we benefit this program? That's what
I see it as.
And actually getting more lands or public lands, which the
government has failed to do -- the federal and the state government
has failed to do, is to maintain their lands. And I know that we will
always get a lot of pressure in maintaining our lands.
Here's a hypothetical $1.5 million to do that. That's all. So we
could spend it any way we want, and it will be spun by some people of
whatever it is, whatever fits their agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, whatever we do, we can't do it
today though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the problem. The only thing we
can do today is say, should Conservation Collier go ahead and buy
this land or not. That's the only question we can answer today.
And the other issue is one that has to come up at a later date.
Page 86
"-'-'^ ^~'--"-~~,.,-
November 29, 2005
And I'm just saying that I feel comfortable trying to tie those two
together right now, because it appears that you're prejudging a future
decision.
And my suggestion is that we focus on the task before us today,
which is to decide whether or not Conservation Collier should go
ahead and buy this property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm all in favor of
that if we can extend the time line and separate the issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ifwe separate the issue, I'm
happy with it. Okay.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, where do we
stand on this?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, as I indicated before, the question before
you is to go forward with reconsideration of the prior approval of the
agreement with the school board for this particular parcel. If you -- if
you determine to reconsider, then you can approve -- you can approve
that item with changes if you -- if you choose to do so.
You may not come to an agreement to make any changes even
after you determine to reconsider the item, but you will have opened
the prior item, which was the review and potential approval of the
contract. You'll have opened the item so that some kind of vote
should be necessary or the contract will be unapproved by the county
in whatever -- in whatever context you may wish to have it.
I'm not quite clear right now in regard to Mr. Henning's last
statement in regard to moving forward with the concept of change __
potentially changing our local ordinances and rules relating to TDRs
and the separation with this agreement being backed off. It may be
that he has indicated that he still would wish for this agreement to be
reconsidered and approved with a later closing date. That may be
what I believe he has indicated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly. I think through this
Page 87
.-,-----. "-.. '~--,,-~.'~'-"
November 29, 2005
discussion that we've -- we want to divorce the issue, just deal with the
purchase of the property with this action, within the -- with a
modification of a later closing date. And that's where we're at.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then--
MR. WEIGEL: And what that indicates, again, for the whole
board, is, that with a -- if the board were to agree to approve the
agreement with a later closing date that Mr. Withers has indicated is
apparently acceptable -- should be acceptable to the school board, then
if the -- if this board gets its house in order relating to TDRs and the
potential redesignation of section 24, which includes this parcel, that
this parcel might have the opportunity to have TDRs of a value to be
sold off and bring money back into the Conservation Collier system.
That is my understanding of Mr. Henning's thought process and
suggested action for this board to take.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is -- Commissioner Halas, then
I'd like to get a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So does it mean that we are going
to retain all the money, or are we going to re -- are we going to split
the cost of these TDRs with the school board since they own the
property?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are no TDRs and there won't be
any.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if you're looking down the
road --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that's another meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The only thing we have to decide right
now is whether or not we're going to reconsider this with a -- an -- the
purpose of getting an extended closing date. That's the only question
that's before us right now. Anything we do with respect to TDRs will
take place in the springtime, I presume; is that correct, County
Manager?
Page 88
,-----.---. "~
November 29, 2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: And Mr. Chairman, if you would, Mr. Pettit's
standing at the mike, and he may have an extra comment for you
before a vote might be taken.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, Mike Pettit for the record. Two
points. One is one I wanted to raise. What we need to keep in mind
when we talk about amending the Conservation Collier -- I think it's
called the Conservation Collier implementation amendment ordinance,
kind of a long-term -- that if the goals in the primary criteria of the
program are to be modified -- and I'm not saying that anything we've
discussed here today would necessarily get there. In fact, some of the
things you said, Commissioner Henning, would argue that this would
be consistent with those goals. It requires a referendum vote. And we
always need to keep that in mind as we go down the road to talking
about amending that ordinance in any way.
Secondly, I think Ms. Chadwell had a comment regarding the
closing date?
MS. CHADWELL: Good morning. Ellen Chadwell, Assistant
County Attorney. If you're going to move to extend the closing date, I
would ask that you specify a time certain. The school board has
indicated that they are willing to extend the closing date, but it's not
indefinite. You know, the values will continue to go up, so if you
could set a time certain on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can't do that until we've reconsidered
this item.
MR. WEIGEL: And if you vote to reconsider, then the item is
open and then you will have the opportunity to make a determination
to approve the agreement with a date certain. And again, reminding
the board that Mr. Withers indicated that a date could be actually
pretty far out there. Mr. Mudd had indicated the end of January. My
thought is the end of January may be a little early. I'd rather have this
in suspense with a little more lead time for work that we do and the
Page 89
~,",.._.,~._._... . ·······"~.~'_·N_~.___· ,'_....", ....,. ..__,.,_~,,~__".,.....~
November 29, 2005
advertisements that will be required.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we don't
reconsider this; that we leave it as it was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to deny reconsideration
by Commissioner Halas.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second for the sake of discussion. I
want to remember, how was it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, it --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean buy it as it was?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How was it? Oh, the way it was is
that we gave direction for the Conservation Collier to go ahead and
make the purchase from the school board for a noted price, and that
was it, to be put into preserve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And is there any further
discussion on that item?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you. In your
motion, does it -- is there any consideration to have a closing date,
say, February 14th --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. The closing date will remain
the same as was brought forth the first time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you don't want to look at any
potentials of enhancing this program?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned about where this
may lead us on this particular piece of property, so that's why I feel
that we need to -- we made a decision, and I think we have to stick to
it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Commissioner, with all
due respect, I'm not going to support your motion, because I think that
Page 90
November 29, 2005
anything that we can do to enhance this program or save some monies
to the taxpayers, we ought to look at. Not that it's set in stone, but we
ought to try any avenue that we can. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta was next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, question: So what this
motion is -- well of course I understand what it is. It's basically just to
end the discussion on this. If this motion doesn't pass and we do vote
to reconsider to bring it back as a regular agenda item, it doesn't mean
that anything --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it is a regular agenda item. You've
already voted at a previous board meeting to reconsider this item, and
this is reconsideration right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So this would be final at
this point in time. Ifwe--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It wouldn't be something that
we could address with more detailed information down the road
another month from now or so? This is something that would take
place and would automatically be put into place as far as if -- I mean,
if we -- I mean, forget about Commissioner Halas's motion. If it failed
and we went forward with a motion to approve this, what exactly
would be the outcome of that? How would we get from point A to
point B and beyond? I want to just try to be realistic about where
we're going with this.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's -- there is -- there is a point
that's out there that folks are thinking about that your -- there's a word
that talks about contract zoning or whatever you're already doing
based on the action doing the predetermination of what you're going to
do in the future by not having all the information in front of you as far
as the zoning action is concerned. So you have one side of that, and I
want to put it there.
The second side says, maybe there's a way that we can preserve
Page 91
,··"·..·_~·___"_._w~,,,..._._~~"",,..__,
November 29, 2005
the worth of the property so that it is -- it is going to be worth more
than it is today, irrespective of the future decision of this board on a
zoning action.
If you go through with the purchase as it is today under the
Conservation Collier ordinance that is in there today, and that's
paragraph 7 on your visualizer that's up on the screen -- and the people
on the TV can see it -- it says, purchasing this land using the
Conservation Collier program as it is today and that ordinance, it __
there is no development rights on that land, no matter what happens
with this board in the future.
You would have to change that ordinance first off, first step. If--
I'm on the second argument. I'm talking about, maybe there's some
future worth to this property above what you're going to purchase it
for. There might be some TDRs. That's an if. That's a future case
that you haven't made a decision on.
But for it even to be a possibility in the future, you're going to
have to change the Conservation Collier ordinance to change
paragraph number 7 to say that it will have -- could have development
rights on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And requires a referendum?
MR. MUDD: No. I believe that the assistant county attorney
said that you've got to be careful about your goals and objectives of
Conservation Collier and if you change them or not.
I believe this paragraph says that except -- except those strictly
compatible with the goals of Conservation Collier. So if you change
that ordinance, okay, it has to be compatible with the existing goals of
Conservation Collier as the voters approved it, and you have in your
ordinance as it exists today.
That's going to take a legal opinion, and that's why David's going
to need some time for some work in order to get that done, in order to
make that determination.
But in my mind, that would be the first step that you would have
Page 92
...._--~..
-~._"-_..~",--~.
November 29, 2005
to take so that it would -- it could have worth, okay?
So prior to closing on this property, this ordinance would have to
change to open up so that it would have some kind of a development
right so that you could have possibly in the future a TDR on this
property or any other property that the county buys with Conservation
Collier.
And then it's a future zoning action to be determined by this
board in the springtime, and that's for a decision. But you've still -- by
changing that ordinance before you do closing, you still have the
possibility that it might have worth. And I believe that's what
Commissioner Henning was talking about in his previous discussion.
So I think I've laid both sides of the story out the best I can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just think your thoughts are
admirable, and I love to see the money go back into Conservation
Collier because we want to conserve as much as possible. But I think
at this point in time, we've already voted to purchase it before. And
even though we're reconsidering it, I would never want -- I would
never want to feel uncomfortable but -- uncomfortable about that,
even though it's admirable to do it.
And so I feel that we should move ahead, but we should make
sure that at another meeting we discuss changing number 7 so that any
future lands that we purchase can -- that might have TD Rs at some
point in time, this number 7 can be modified.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we still have some speakers
on this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you might want to get that
out of the way before we go to a vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, you have one speaker; Brad
Page 93
h____,.,__""',.h
November 29, 2005
Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. It's Brad
Cornell with Collier County Audubon Society. I have to confess that
I'm a little dizzy listening to this conversation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Us too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we were dizzy before we started
it.
MR. CORNELL: And I also want to say that it's really good to
hear you discussing earnestly and acknowledging the value of TDRs
for all the public to see, because they do have a great deal of value,
and I think that's an important concept in protecting the conservation
lands that both Conservation Collier and Collier County has said they
want to do in North Belle Meade where section 24 is, so that's a good
thing.
I think that this particular parcel -- I guess I want to echo what
Commissioner Fiala just said. This particular parcel needs to be dealt
with, bought and closed, as it was agreed on and as you had made
your decision already.
I think that Commissioner Henning has a very laudable goal in
looking for ways to save money for Conservation Collier for further
purchases and for management. I think this is very laudable goal.
I think that this particular parcel is too problematic. There are
too many problems with the perception of manipulation or -- the other
thing that I want to stress that it's a problem is that the voters voted for
this with the understanding that the county buying conservation land
extinguishes the development rights, and that had some history.
Because when Lee County adopted their 2020 program, they did
not adopt such a policy, and the voters didn't realize it. And so
suddenly there was density coming off of conservation lands that had
been bought with public money and given to -- and through the
rezoning process, they moved that density to other places in the
county, and the voters were just livid.
Page 94
November 29, 2005
And so we here in Collier County saw that happen. It happened
before we adopted our program, before the voters voted on it, and we
said, we're not going to let that happen here. We're going to extinguish
the developments. So that's the history of that. That's why that was
written in in policy number 7.
To reconsider that is going to be a huge change, and I don't think
you want to do that for this particular parcel. If it can be narrowed to
some way of, you know, benefitting just the program and not
development at large, then maybe there's some merit in that, and that's
for another meeting and another discussion.
I think -- I would recommend and conser -- or excuse me __
Collier County Audubon Society recommends that you buy this parcel
outright as you had planned with the closing date in December.
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the only problem with that
theory is, in the fringe, the receiving lands, they're going to buy TDRs
from somebody, and why not the taxpayer? Why can't the taxpayer
benefit from it? So that's my closing statement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And let's vote on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We have a motion to keep the
prior approval to purchase this property unchanged, including the
closing date --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Halas, and a second
by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 95
"H""-_'__"_¥'~·_"',^~M..__~~"~V""·~_'_~'_"_"'^.
November 29, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning is voting
in opposition. It passes 3 -- or 4-1.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Same vote it was before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have something else we can get
done in 10 minutes?
MS. FILSON: Yes, public comment. We have one speaker.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How do we know we won't have another
one this afternoon?
MS. FILSON: We don't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we're going to hold it till this
afternoon.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have no other items that we
can -- that we can cover right now that's on our agenda. What I--
something I want you to ponder, okay, because I'm going to talk about
it a little bit and I want you to -- I don't want to -- this has a lot to do
with last night's forum, okay, on affordable housing. The chairman
has asked me at least one time before, and he brought it up at last
meeting -- and I have staff working on this particular -- on this
particular task. And the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you kill this thing?
MR. MUDD: Oh, sure. I can get rid of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: And the particular task is to take a look at all the
PUDs that this board has approved over the last several years. I'd say
Page 96
... .,...._._--"-,,._~._._-""~._.
November 29, 2005
a couple, but it's more than -- you've done really well over the last four
years as a group.
And you've had people come forward with PUDs and you have
asked them to please consider affordable housing, sometimes in
percentages, sometimes in quantities, sometimes it's been workforce
housing, sometimes you've called it gap.
I don't want to do definitions right now. But I've asked staff,
based on Commissioner Coyle's request and some direction I got from
the board last time, to go out there and look at those PUDs to figure
out how many of these units they've actually built and how many
remain to be built.
And what I'm going to ask the board for this afternoon is some
direction to draft a letter for the chairman's signature to go back out.
And, oh, by the way, 1'11 pass this letter around to the Chamber of
Commerce and all of those people, those stakeholders that were there
last night that were really concerned about housing and lack thereof
for their workforce, and ask staff to draft a letter for the chairman's
signature to go out to those particular developers and developments to
ask them to get after -- speed up the construction, because I believe
you're going to find out that the last thing that they're going to build is
those workforce and affordable units.
I can only surmise that right now. I have not seen the numbers
yet. I know Cormac and Mr. Denny -- Cormac Giblin and Mr. Denny
Baker are working on that in community development -- but to ask
them to speed up those particular units and try to get something on the
market.
The other thing I was going to ask the board this afternoon -- and
I just want you to ponder this, and you can tell me no, and these are
complicated items.
The next thing is, the board in the last couple of meetings has
asked developers to contribute to a trust based on the number of units
or the square foot of commercial that they're going to build.
Page 97
November 29, 2005
All of those particular agreements have been based on those
contributions corning when the CO is on that particular item. Those
are years away.
I'm going to ask the board for some direction for the county
manager to draft for the chairman's signature another letter to those
particular developers to see if they would deposit earlier than when __
CO on those particular funds so that we can create a housing trust
fund, so to speak, in case there is an opportunity to buy a particular
property that should corne up.
Last but not least on that list for you to consider -- and, again, I'm
sorry for the short notice, but somebody just carne into my office here
two days ago, and I've discussed this with the commissioners inn
whose district -- whose district this lies, is the owners of the Riviera
Golf Course came to see me last week and said that they would be
willing to sell their property to the county for some kind of affordable
housing/workforce type future development, and that's 93 acres, of
which there's around 81 buildable acres on that particular property.
There are four owners, of which only one carne to see me, but he
represented the other three, and they're from Minnesota. And they
bought the property a year ago to the tune of about 4.8 or $4.9 million,
okay? And no doubt their price will be a little bit higher than that. But
it would be something that I was going to ask the board's direction
before I spent any more time on it.
If you would like me to go out there and start negotiations with
Riviera Golf Course owners, any developers or stakeholders in
workforce housing to see if we could solidify and possibly in the
future consummate some kind of a sale for that particular property to
be used as such.
Now, that property is not zoned in any way, shape, or form as
someplace that you can develop for housing. It's a golf course, and
that's the way it's zoned right now. And I know that that's something
out there. But it carne up, and I would like to know what the board
Page 98
.- ~-"-"_'.,...,.__.~.,_.,--."-"-,..
November 29, 2005
would like me to do, and I'd like to discuss those items with you after
lunch, but I wanted to at least put those out to the record so that you
can think about them over lunch and then we can talk about it later.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where's this Riviera Golf Course
located?
MR. MUDD: It's County Barn and Rattlesnake Hammock. It
basically is in that -- it's in that north -- northeastern quadrant that
those -- so County Barn is off to the east, and Rattlesnake Hammock
is to the south.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, two things. Number one, abol,lt
that proj ect, being that he only has owned it a year and it hasn't been
profitable at all, it's been a losing proposition for him, I'm sure that he
wants to change the zoning on the property, jack up the price and just
sell it, and that's the highest zoning he can get, so I'm sure that's what
his motivations are.
Secondly, when you were talking about finding -- you know,
finding out how many homes had actually been built in all of these
PUDs, is there any way -- is there any way at all that we as a county
can also check on those condo conversions, those rental conversions
into condos where actually they corne out at a pretty decent price
sometimes, you know, between 140 and 180, but then there's no
restrictions on them whatsoever and they're sold to investors rather
than the people who really need them.
Is there any way to find out how many of those -- sometimes they
make it very, very difficult. They offer it first to their people, except
they make it so difficult that people can't buy it, so they're out on the
street. Is there any way we can do something about that or check to
see how that -- how that's -- how that's affecting our market?
MR. MUDD: We can -- we can try. Your--
Page 99
___.....~.~"._.~. ,·,_·"._~·.·,_u~",~"~"~_~·___"._·."",;·~;>,,,~, ~-" ,,"',.- "~,._~,.'...""...~~_,".".",~_,~,.,_.._",_."."...._'__._._-~--,. -."
November 29, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know it's a big task.
MR. MUDD: No, the question you're asking is a hard one,
because I'll get into the -- I've got to get into the internal workings of
that particular development and the ownership of that product.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: We can go out there and try and we can either --
we can -- and I'll call out the strong arm a little bit with a draft letter
with the chairman's signature that basically says, hey, we'd like to
know how many you've sold, how much the price range is, what are
you offering, because we have some real concerns about workforce
housing in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've been getting letters recently
from different members of our community in different reasonable
units who are -- this has happened. It's been offered to them, but they
can't buy it. Okay, okay. I'm sorry. I have to stop.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, you don't have --
you've got less than two minutes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll take only 30 seconds.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think one of the things we have to
also realize is this is a free enterprise system, so there's a lot of areas
of concern when you start trying to limit who's going to buy what, so
that's one of the things you've got to really be concerned about.
You've got property rights and all sorts of things in the system.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: May I take your remaining minutes and
a half?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's -- it pertains to this, and I want to
clarify it quickly so that all the commissioners understand. You saw a
quote, perhaps, in the newspaper by me about saying, forget about
higher densities in the urban area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as it's not in my district.
Page 100
November 29, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, no, no, no. Forget about higher
densities in the urban area. But the reason -- and that was a correct
statement, by the way. And the reason for that is that we only have
six north/south roads and six east/west roads.
We start building substantially higher densities in the urban area,
we have no way to recover from those increased densities, and we've
got traffic gridlock and no alternatives.
Furthermore, increased densities is not the solution to affordable
housing. Every time we increase the density of a property, we inflate
the value of the property. So if we give someone huge density
bonuses because they build a handful of affordable homes, we're
creating more value for that property, so the next property value --
property owner is going to say, ah-huh, now I can get 16 or 18 or 20
units per acre on my property so I can sell it at a higher price now.
So what I have -- had in mind when I made the statement was
that what we do is give higher density only for affordable housing
projects.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can live with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Only for affordable housing projects.
We don't give higher density to somebody who's going to build 10
percent of affordable housing. So -- and that way we can probably
control the price escalation of the land and still provide additional
density for those that are specifically and probably 100 percent
affordable housing projects.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just clarify. So if you have
100 acres and you are going to -- you want to build 10 affordable
housing units, okay, or say 100 affordable housing units, but you were
applying for a density bonus, of course, for the entire 100 acres, what
you're saying is they don't get the entire hundred acres, they only get
the density bonus for the 100 homes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, that's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, that would answer a lot of
Page 101
November 29, 2005
problems.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That will solve a lot of problems.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we have this discussion at a
workshop?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. We're adjourned. No more
discussion. We're adjourned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that we do need to
discuss this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, but later on. I just wanted to clarify
this issue so people didn't think that I was out of my mind. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We already knew it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're not adjourned. We're
recessed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Recessed, yes, till one o'clock.
(A luncheon 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 now.
County Manager, that takes us to--
MR. MUDD: 7 A, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: --7A?
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2005-416: V A-2005-AR-8122, CARL AND KAREN
KOLLER, AS OWNER AND AGENT, ARE REQUESTING FOUR
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES AS FOLLOWS: A .8-FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 7.5 FOOT SIDE YARD TO
6.7 FEET; A .3-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 7.5
FOOT SIDE YARD TO 7.2 FEET: A 2.5-FOOT VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK TO
Page 102
November 29, 2005
17.5 FEET; AND A 1.8-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK TO 18.2 FEET
FOR THE COMPLETION OF A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE
AND AN EXISTING ENCROACHMENT OF THE EXISTING
NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE TO THE
SIDE (WEST) AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 610 99TH
AVENUE NORTH, NAPLES PARK UNIT 3, LOT 28, BLOCK 29,
IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: 7A is, this item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commissioner
members.
It's variance 2005-AR-8122, Carl and Karen Koller, as owner and
agent, are requesting four after-the-fact variances as follows: A
.8-foot variance from the required 7.5-foot side yard, and that would
bring it to 7 -- or excuse me -- 6.7 feet; and a .3-foot variance from the
required 7.5-foot side yard, so that would bring it to 7.2 feet; and a
2.5-foot variance from the required 20-foot yard setback, and that
would bring that setback to 17.5 feet; and a 1.8-foot variance from the
required 20- foot rear yard setback, which would bring that setback to
18.2 feet, for the completion of a partially constructed addition to an
existing single-family structure in an existing encroachment of the
existing nonconforming single-family structure to the side west and
rear yard setback requirement.
The subject property is located at 610 99th Avenue North, Naples
Park, Unit 3, Lot 28, Block 29 in Section 28, Township 48 south,
Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And Mr. Mike Bosi, planner from community
Page 103
November 29, 2005
development's environmental services, will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Just a moment. We need to
swear in everybody. So everyone planning to give testimony in this
petition, please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ex parte disclosure from the
commissioners. We'll start with Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I had a meeting scheduled last
week, I believe, and the applicant didn't meet with me, but he
subsequently met with me, I believe, a few months when it first carne
up. So I fully understand what's happening here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I met with Carl Koller.
I've also received e-mails and phone calls, and it's all in my folder if
anyone wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have correspondence and
calls, which are in the folder, my public folder, if anyone wishes to see
them.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had a meeting with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Spoke to Mr. Koller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. With that, we'll start the
presentation.
MR. KOLLER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Carl
Koller. The reason why I'm asking for this variance, I had submitted
plans for building a room on to my house where the existing lanai was
basically squaring off the west and south end of the house, making a
couple extra bedrooms to accommodate my large family that I have.
In the process of doing so, after receiving the permit, started
construction, and during the spot-check found out that I was
encroaching. And from that point on, went through the variance
Page 104
November 29, 2005
process, and this brings us here today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there any questions from the
commission? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Koller, the spot survey was,
I presume, of the slab; that's when they requested a spot survey?
MR. KOLLER: Y es. We had -- done with the slab, and then
what I was told, I needed the walls up. Put the walls up, had the
survey again, and it didn't make it. We found it was encroaching, and
that's when I began the process of the variance paperwork.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what's encroaching? Is it
the wall or the slab?
MR. KOLLER: What it turned out to be is, from the original
survey of the home -- the survey was taken at the front point of the
home to the property line, and that's what they went off of originally
when we put -- finally put the walls up. Because like I said, I had the
permitting to start the construction, and that's when we found out that
the house itself is skewed on the property, and there was no way of us
really knowing that until we've reached the point that we did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see. Okay, thank you.
MR. KOLLER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I -- tell me, sir, when you
went through this process and you had your meetings and everything,
what was the -- what was the neighbors' reactions?
MR. KOLLER: My neighbor on the side that the construction's
being done on, he had no problem with it. He says, if you needed
anything, let me know. In fact, he was willing to -- he said he'd write
a letter saying that, you know, just go ahead and do it, approve it. But
I told him it has to go through this process, and if there's -- if he has,
you know, anything, he can come to a meeting, if he had any
objections. He said, I have no objections.
And the only other thing I've heard of is there was one person a
Page 105
November 29, 2005
block over about seven properties up, a vacant lot owner, had some
objection to it because he feels that Naples Park is too crowded as it
was.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Ms. Filson, do we have
any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was going to do that. It's my
district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I take back my
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. Take that motion back.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The reason -- the reason being, that
this house was built, I believe, back in 1975 by your father.
MR. KOLLER: Yes, sir, father-in-law.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And at the time there was a whole
complete different zoning aspect there in Naples Park.
Normally I look very carefully at -- when there's any kind of
variances. And because of the fact that this building has been there for
so long and has gone through a different zoning process, I feel that
that was no fault of you -- your own or your father at the time it was
built. And I make a motion for approval of this variance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Halas
for approval, and it was seconded by both Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Fiala.
Are there any public speakers?
Page 106
-"'....-..----.-.<....----'"--
November 29, 2005
MS. FILSON: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I'll close the public hearing,
and I will call the question.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is approved unanimously.
MR. KOLLER: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2005-417: VA-2005-AR-7965 JAMES AND LORI
HALL, REPRESENTED BY DIANE F AAS, IS REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR AN EXISTING SCREEN ENCLOSURE
WITHIN THE REQUIRED 10-FOOT REAR SETBACK FOR AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN A RSF-3 ZONING DISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A 2 FOOT, 4 INCH VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIRED 10-FOOT SET BACK, LEAVING AN 8-
FOO,T 8-INCH REAR YARD. THE PROPERTY TO BE
CONSIDERED FOR THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED AT 112
WARWICK HILLS DRIVE AND IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS
UNIT 1 BLOCK 4 LOT 8, OF LEL Y GOLF ESTATES, IN
SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is item 7B. This item requires that
all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Page 107
--~_...,_."."".....-.-..._.., --'"...._.,..>~.~,~--.~.'~,---"""".....-,...
November 29, 2005
commission members.
It's variance 2005-AR-7965, James and Lori Hall, represented by
Diane Faas, is requesting a variance for an existing screen enclosure
within the required 10- foot rear setback for an accessory structure in
an RSF - 3 zoning district.
The applicant is seeking a two-foot, four-inch variance from the
required 10- foot setback, leaving an eight-foot, eight-inch rear yard.
The property to be considered for the variance is located at 112
Warwick Hills Drive, and it's further described in Unit 1, Block 4, Lot
8 of the Lely Golf Estates in Section 19, Township 50 south, Range 26
east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all people planning to
provide testimony in this petition please stand for -- to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we will have disclosure starting
with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have correspondence only.
How about Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No disclosures on this subject.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Who's going to make the first presentation, the petitioner?
Mr. MUDD: The petitioner, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait a minute. I talked with staff. I
should say that, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Put that on the record, please,
Page 108
November 29, 2005
that I talked with staff.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then I have to correct that. I
talked to staff, or talked to the county manager in regards to this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I never talked to the county manager.
I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MS. FAAS: Okay. Hi. I'm sorry to bring everybody here for
this, but I'll just start with why we're here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please state your name for the record,
please.
MS. FAAS: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Diane Faas, and I work
for my husband's company, Faas Brothers. And my mother had my
position, and I worked for Eye Centers of Florida for 13 years, and I
had to resign and take care of her because she was terminally ill.
So when she passed away, I slid into her position in construction.
Very different from the medical profession.
And when I -- the Halls' situation carne up, and we had submitted
a permit. Well, I called the building department and asked for the
permit number. In medicine you call, you get a confirmation number,
and that's good as gold. Well, it's not like that in construction. I
learned the hard way.
I sent our guys out to take the old job down and put the new one
up. And a couple of days later, the building department called me and
told me that the permit had been declined.
So I went to the building department. I saw Steve Fontane and
Denise Metcalf, and I asked what I did wrong, you know, and they
explained to me, no, everybody gets a permit number when it's issued
and starts to go through the process. So I learned all about the mistake
that I made with that.
So we -- the Halls contracted with us. That's why I'm here
representing them, because we give 120 percent customer service, and
we could not do that because it's taken me two years to get to this
Page 109
_.-
~.,"-"<----->._^.,~.~.".~..,~--
November 29, 2005
point.
They said that I needed to get letters of no objection from FP&L,
Sprint, Comcast, and I also got one from George Ramsey, who is the
head of the -- president of Lely Association.
And that's why we're asking for the variance so that we can get
this variance so that I can get this job inspected and do everything that
we're supposed to.
And I apologize. I admit I made the error. And ignorance isn't __
you know, I mean, I shouldn't -- but I didn't do it intentionally, I
promIse.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Joe, would you corne up,
please? I had a talk with Mr. Schmitt, who's the administrator for that
department, and asked him if their denial of this was a soft denial and
if he actually felt that this, you know, should be considered. And, Joe,
would you please relate to the other commissioners what you said?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator of
Community Development/Environmental Services Divisions.
Yes, we discussed this. I guess we call it a soft denial even
though there's -- it's kind of one of those ones where, yes, the error
was done.
The -- certainly from a planning perspective and from Mike
Bosi's review following the rules, this certainly does not warrant
approval.
Your planning commission noted that the previous screen had
been up almost 25 years. It certainly has never been objected to by
anybody in the neighborhood, and what was replaced was replaced
over the previous existing footprint. I think the unique thing about
this property is, in fact -- and I'll throw that on there, Jim, if we could.
And I'm going to point.
What happens, what's -- where the error is, is that it actually juts
out. Here's the side of the house. Normally it would come right up
Page 110
--^
November 29, 2005
alongside the house. You would have -- you would -- actually the
lanai would not extend beyond the side yard setbacks or the side yard
of the house. Naturally in this case it does. The pool, in fact, does.
We recommended objection, of course, because there is no
compelling reason to approve it, but given that, in fact, the previous
cage has been up for almost 25 years, nobody ever objected to it, it's
certainly within your authority to recommend approval. And I think
in this case, it may be warranted based on the discussions that -- from
the planning commission as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then I make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
And Commissioner Halas has a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My understanding, that this house
was built back in 1975, and then there was -- excuse me, house was
built in 1971, and the pool was constructed in '75, and that the original
pool cage didn't have a permit for it; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: We never found any record of the original pool
cage having a permit. That doesn't say that one didn't exist.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you think maybe that the permit
fell in the floor and the janitor swept it up or--
MR. SCHMITT: No, Commissioner. In fact, we only keep two
years of records on -- in Collier County. The rest of the records are
stored at our off-site location.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Going back 25 years is almost problematic __
actually almost 30 years. There may have been one, we just certainly
couldn't find it. And I don't argue that there was or was not one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: In this case here, of course, Faas came in and __
Page III
0'.' .. _....""'__,,~_,,._... _._,~
November 29, 2005
the company carne in and applied, and by error, certainly, began
construction prior to having an approved permit. And as you well
know, you're required to have an approved permit. In fact, state law
does require that the property owner has to actually sign the permit
before it's a notice of commencement, and the property owner is
required to sign that notice of commencement prior to any
commencement. So there, in fact, was an error committed by the
contractor here. But I think the lesson's been learned.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But what we're saying, every
variance that comes before us, it's always, we build it first and then
ask for forgiveness, about everyone that's come before us. Whether--
the one that was just prior to us, obviously it was because the house
was built many years ago.
MR. SCHMITT: And that was stopped during the construction.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then -- yes. And then this --
we got this one where they go in, they tear down the old pool cage and
put a new pool cage up, and then all -- how did they find out that they
were not in compliance? Was this brought to the attention of the code
enforcement or just how --
MR. SCHMITT: No. This was through the application process
they were denied the permit. And at that time, they realized that it
does not comply. And as was just stated, went to talk to staff, staff
informed them that, in fact, what was being proposed was not in
compliance with the land development code and -- but the pool cage
was already up, which then required the permit.
Certainly, the cost associated now with applying for the variance
is significant as well, and probably almost over two years of the
process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does this require -- when they tear
down the old pool cage and get a permit to put a new one up, does this
require a spot survey?
MR. SCHMITT: It -- for final CO, normally -- and at that time
Page 112
____~~.,_..o·__
November 29, 2005
and in most instances, at CO, yes, you would have to have a spot
survey to validate that you are in compliance. In this case here, if the
variance is issued, we know where the measurements are. We'll issue
the final CO based on what was built.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. When they come in to
obtain a permit --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- what is -- what do they have to
bring forth -- in the normal application of getting a permit __
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- to replace this pool cage, what
do they need? What do people need?
MR. SCHMITT: Under normal circumstances now. This is not
post-Wilma. Under normal--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. Under normal --
MR. SCHMITT: -- circumstances, you have to corne in with the
proper engineering to support the construction of the permit.
Normally that's based on a master permit of some sort from a
company that issues the master design manuals; the proper
engineering; and then the -- of course, the permit application.
Once the -- we perform our inspections. Field inspections
normally concentrate specifically on anchoring, anchoring to the
structure itself, and were the right materials used. If it calls for an
eight-inch truss or 10-inch truss, and then you call for final, final CO
will validate. They have to have the setbacks usually done within 10
days of completion, and they file for final CO . We validate the
setbacks, and then the grounding of the pool cage.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. When we go back and
apply for permit --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and they bring in the -- did they
bring in the engineering report at that time?
Page 113
._"--_.'~
November 29, 2005
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Was that -- did they bring that
engineering report in when they tried to get this?
MR. SCHMITT: They brought in a site plan that showed where
they wanted to build the cage, and that site plan showed clearly that it
was not going to be in compliance, and that's why it was rejected.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And were they notified that
it was --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- going to be rejected?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But they continued on?
MR. SCHMITT: I think the pool cage was already built, if I'm
not mistaken, yes. That's what was testified to.
MS. F AAS: It was a very small encroachment.
MR. SCHMITT: Step up to the mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have to get you on the mike, please.
MS. FAAS: It's a very small screen enclosure, so we had like
four guys on it, so they were able to put it up in two days.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: From the site, it looks like it's a
fairly good-sized screen --
MS. FAAS: Well, we are used to doing three stories, two-story
screen enclosures with cranes, so these guys -- this was a piece of cake
for them, so they said, so that's why it got up so fast.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. FAAS: I have a picture of the old screen enclosure,
because, you know, it's like my words or the Halls' words against.
When we have a salesman that goes out and contracts the jobs, he
takes a picture of the old screen enclosure, because their facia was
actually rotting is why -- that they needed a new enclosure. And I
have pictures of it if you -- anyone wanted to see that. The old one
was white.
Page 114
~-"--
--"-..----""',...-.,
November 29,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not interested in pictures. I'm
just interested in the line of events that took place while this was being
-- going through the process of being razed and then a new one put in
place, what was the timeline?
MS. F AAS: It was a matter of a couple of days.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And when did you apply for the
permit?
MS. F AAS: I applied for the permit like on March -- let's see. It
was March 10th.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But when did they start tearing the
pool cage down?
MS. F AAS: Let's see. I sent -- let's see. I have a courier service,
so I sent my courier service to drop off the permit to the building
department, and I want to say it had to be maybe like two days, and
we sent the guys out.
Because what I did is I called the building department. I got, as I
was saying, the permit number, which I thought, that's great. They
can go out, take it down. By the time they put it up, I'll post the
permit, and then the guys will be done, call in for inspection, and
everything will be great. But it doesn't work out that way because the
permit was declined, and so, therefore, I never got that far. I had to
back step.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why would staff over the phone
give out that permit number if it was going to be declined?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, normally the way the process
works is you come in and you apply for a permit. I give you a permit
number right there, right then.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then, this lady--
MR. SCHMITT: And that permit number is just the number of
your permit. It is not an approval. You get -- then the applicant __
after going through review then the applicant is notified of approval or
disapproval.
Page 115
-,,-,,--...,.....,.,"...."'.,..-.-,..
November 29, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So do you think the applicant then
assumed that when somebody gave her the number over the phone that
this was a clear indication that she could go forward with the work of
this?
MR. SCHMITT: I'll have to defer to the applicant because I'm
not going to make any assumptions for her.
MS. FAAS: That's what I did.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I mean, why would your office
give out a permit number if it -- I would think you'd say, hey, there's a
permit number, but you have to corne in before you do anything
because we've got some questions.
MR. SCHMITT: The process works exactly that way,
Commissioner. You corne in and you apply. I give you a number that
day that -- you're numbered by the year and the date of the
application. That's basically kind of the basis of the number. And then
you'll get a call to corne in and pick up your permit. You're not
supposed to start work until you pick up your permit. And in fact,
state law requires, again, notice of commencement that the property
owner has to sign the notice of commencement prior to beginning any
construction on site. And then that permit is required to be posted,
and then the contractor can start the work.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask you a question? How
many property owners do you think realize that there is a state law
that says that they have to sign the permit before work commences?
MR. SCHMITT: Probably not many, but that's up to the
contractor. That's part of the contractor licensing. They're obligated
to inform the property owner that they're supposed to sign the notice
of commencement.
I did go back to look at -- ask my building director to look at
Faas Brothers' record; 1,049 permits since 1990. Only two citations,
one in 2001 and one in 2004. Both were minor infractions and fines
were paid.
Page 116
"~~_...~__ M.
November 29, 2005
So even from a standpoint -- I met yesterday with two
representatives of the pool industry in regards to post-Wilma
activities, and Faas Brothers is, in fact, on my list of reputable dealers.
Right now my biggest concern in the county are folks out there
representing themselves as pool cage contractors who probably, last
week, may have been bricklayers. But that's a whole different story.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what I'm trying to do is, I'm
trying to get to the source so that this isn't a reoccurring problem.
That we always end up, for one reason or another, people be -- corne
before us and they build it first, and then ask for forgiveness later, and
there's an awful lot of people out there that jump through fire hoops,
spend a lot of time in your facilities to do the right thing -_
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and then, of course, there's other
people out there -- not saying that this particular person did that, but
there are people out there that go ahead and circumvent the law
because they know that there's something wrong with -- if they go
through the proper application and then end up saying, guess what, I
want forgiveness now.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And that's the same --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it's a problem, and I'm trying
to figure out what we need to do or what you may have to do to make
sure that we can address these issues before it comes before us in
regards to an -- a variance after the fact.
MR. SCHMITT: All we can do is do exactly what happened in
this case, notify the applicant that their application did not meet the
requirements and it was rejected.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. But they started working on
it.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, and they were wrong.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I would think that -- she did
the work, the legwork, but her engineering or whoever works in her
Page 11 7
-.~-_. ._»'---~.,"".
November 29, 2005
area --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- you would think says, we can't
go out there and start working on this because we do not have a
permit.
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. And that is strictly the contractor's
responsibility. I can't answer for the contractor. I would defer that. If
you so direct, we can take this matter to the contractor licensing board
if it's something you wanted to --
MR. MUDD: Joe, is there a way -- just to help the
commissioner. I think I know where he's going.
Is there away, when you give out the permit number on a sheet
of paper, or whatever you give, to have a warning at the bottom that
says, this number is not a license. You must pick up your permit
when we give you a call, to be a permit, and put a warning at the
bottom so that they know --
MR. SCHMITT: That is all on there, Jim.
MR. MUDD: It's already on there?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, it's on the bottom of the permit. And
basically pretty clear, because all you get is a cover sheet. You don't
MR. MUDD: And the cover sheet has the warning on it?
MR. SCHMITT: All you get is the -- basically the receipt with
the permit number. You do not get -- you do not get the building
permit --
MR. MUDD: I'm not arguing a point, Joe. Does that permit
receipt that you give them with the number state that this is not a
permit and they must get the permit after it goes through review?
That's all I'm -- and that's my only question. And if it's already there,
then it's done already. But if it's not there, we could do that in the
future to try to prevent this from happening again.
MR. SCHMITT: I've got a copy of the -- what actually is given
Page 118
November 29,2005
out. And right on the bottom it says, there's a warning -- there's a
warning note to the -- actually to the owner to record notice of
commencement. What are some of the other warnings there?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we take it out of fine
print and make it larger?
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And maybe in red letters.
MR. SCHMITT: We will-- we will make sure that all applicants
are well aware that -- again, it's clear on there, but I'll make sure,
again, that all applicants are fully aware that they cannot proceed until
a notice of commencement is received, which is basically your permit,
and it has to be posted. And, of course, that is the notice that the
application was approved, and we will do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to say to Mrs.
Faas, we have a lot of people who come in and try and pull the wool
over our eyes by building something and then say, oops, we meant to,
whereas, I think in your case, being that you've had a thousand -- well
over a thousand permits and with only two little slight infractions that
were taken care of immediately and you've built it in the same
footprint as before and the thing has been standing for 25 years, I think
that in this case there were a couple errors, and maybe it is the
transition from one to another in the office. And I can certainly
understand that.
I know where Commissioner Halas is coming from because so
often this isn't the case. It's different. So my motion stands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, and there was a second by Commissioner
Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
Page 119
~--_.." ^'''.'"'>..,...._..._-~
November 29, 2005
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.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then it passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Halas dissenting.
Thank you very much.
Item #8A (Moved from Item #17D)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 15,
2005 BCC MEETING. PUDZ-A-2005-AR-7403 GRAND INN OF
NAPLES, INC., REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL FERNANDEZ OF
PLANNING DEVELOPMENT, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM THE PUD ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PUD MIXED USE
ZONING DISTRICT BY REVISING THE EXISTING PINE RIDGE
MEDICAL CENTER PUD DEVELOPMENT AND PUD MASTER
PLAN TO REDUCE THE COMMERCIAL USE TO 10,000 SF,
RENOVATE THE EXISTING HOTEL INTO A CONDOMINIUM
BUILDING WITH 64 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND CHANGE THE
NAME OF THE PUD. THE PROPERTY TO BE CONSIDERED
FOR THIS REZONE IS LOCATED IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP
49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, LOT 51, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. THIS PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 4.02 ACRES AND
IS LOCATED AT 1100 PINE RIDGE ROAD - CONTINUED TO
DECEMBER 13, 2005 BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item
Page 120
November 29, 2005
under paragraph 8, advertised public hearings, and that's item 17D.
And 17D reads, this item was continued from the November 15, 2005,
BCC meeting.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members. It's
PUDZ-A-2005-AR-7403, Grand Inn of Naples, Inc., represented by
Michael Fernandez of Planning Development, Incorporated,
requesting a rezone from the PUD zoning district to the PUD
mixed-use zoning district by revising the existing Pine Ridge Medical
Center PUD document and the PUD master plan to reduce the
commercial use to 10,000 square foot, renovate the existing hotel into
a condominium building with 64 residential units, and change the
name of the PUD.
The property to be considered for this rezone is located in
Section 15, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Lot 51, Collier
County, Florida. This property consists of 4.02 acres and is located at
1,100 Pine Ridge Road.
Commissioner, I will also let you know that -- get this so I can
see it -- that Mr. Fernandez has written this particular note this
morning, I believe, at 10:29 a.m. today to the chairman and is
basically stating that his redevelopment will or must comply with all
parking requirements of the land development code.
He talks about -- in here about excess parking which was
developed in the original project. I can only assume from the third
paragraph that he's talking -- that the SDP or the one that he submitted
had 194 spaces and the original proj ect stipulation was 175.
That's what I know. And if that clarification to the chairman isn't
good enough, then he is requesting a continuance until the 13th of
December, and that's strictly up to the Board of County
Commissioners and your wishes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me inform the other
commissioners why I had this pulled. The site development plan that
Page 121
--,~-~-.<-'"--,-~...._"~
November 29,2005
is attached to this petition did not identify, in my opinion, sufficient
parking spaces to do what was being proposed.
The number of parking spaces depends entirely upon the nature
of the units, whether they are two-bathroom, one-bedroom, or
efficiency units that are planned in this condominium.
Now, I know, and staff has emphasized to me, that this is not the
time to be talking about or worrying about the approval of parking
spaces. But I feel uneasy about approving a development, at least
going through the rezoning process, in a way that leaves the opinion
that the number of parking spaces proposed in this particular request is
adequate because it's not adequate in my opinion.
Anyone who goes through an economic analysis to redevelop a
project such as this and to propose 56 residential units, it would seem
to me that they would first decide how -- what kind of residential units
they're going to have. Are they going to be efficiencies, are they
going to be one-bedrooms, are they going to be two-bedrooms. They
would have to do an economic analysis before they can make a
rational decision about taking on the proj ect.
So my question was, and still is, what is the nature of the 56
residential units and how many parking spaces are going to be
required and where are they going to be?
I also got the impression from the staff that I shouldn't worry
about this, that they'll make that decision later on. That bothers me
because we have recently had a situation where the board specifically
disapproved a variance on a house in Commissioner Halas's
neighborhood, and then the staff ultimately approved a concoction of
measurements and cantilevering of a seawall to permit them to meet
the requirements, and thereby approved the petition. So I'm trying to
prohibit that sort of thing from happening again.
And so however way we do it, all I'm asking for is that somebody
present us accurate information in the packet. Either there is no
accuracy with respect to the types of residential units that they're
Page 122
.__w_~
November 29, 2005
constructing or there's no accuracy to the site plan which identifies the
number of parking spaces they're proposing.
So if they've gone to the trouble of designing a site plan that is
included in our packet that shows parking spaces and if that is
incorrect, I think it should be corrected before it's been brought to us,
and that's my only concern.
What is it they're going to do, how many parking spaces do they
really require, and let's have the correct information whenever we
consider it, and that way we'll eliminate any confusion in the future.
Because I'm afraid if we approve it as it is here, the next time they
come in they're going to say, well, wait a minute, the board approved
this and my site plan was in here, and it showed 194 parking spaces.
To me that isn't adequate and that's not the way we should proceed on
these things, but nevertheless.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we don't have that information that
you're requiring. And if you want this information, then I would ask
that the board continue this particular item so the petitioner --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Move for approval.
MR. MUDD: -- can be here. And you'll let him know what
information you need at the next board meeting so that you can make
a decision on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me specify what I would like
to see. I would like to see an accurate count of the parking spaces
required and an accurate count of the number of residential units
they're going to build and what size they will be, because that
determines the parking spaces. That's all I'm asking. Give me
something that's accurate before we can make a decision.
So, Commissioner Henning? We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 123
~...~-'-'-'~--"'-"._-
____"'.-----. ,..~_,."...~."~,..._,_,.,..,~"_c",__,··,·_,,,,··_·_···
November 29, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. MUDD: I was going to say, if you're going to continue this
discussion, you need to swear in and you need to declare ex parte. But
if you're going to just motion to continue, then I think we're okay.
David, am I --
MR. WEIGEL: You're okay. They can do the ex parte before
they make a final vote at a continued time if they wish.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And should we swear in the
staff? The petitioner's not here.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't -- if you're going to continue the
item --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: -- then there's no swearing in or swearing at
necessary .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right, fair enough. Then we'll
do that right before we take the vote.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why are we continuing this?
It's on our agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We're continuing it because the
petitioner had a schedule conflict. He did not realize until yesterday
that I was going to pull this particular item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- yeah. I was going to
pull it anyways myself because I have some further concerns.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not our fault that it's on the
agenda. I mean, you know, why did the petitioner have a conflict in
his calendar, his schedule, to where we have to continue it? And
here's a perfect day to do it. It's 1 :30.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we can address it. We
don't know what the next agenda -- how busy it's going to be.
Page 124
November 29, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, I agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, I mean, I'm not going to
support the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, he's petitioning us to
take action, but he's not here to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, in his -- and I'm not going to
defend him on this issue, but his expectation was that it would be on
the summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: His expectation, the board was
going to approve it right off the bat.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So he made other arrangements
to be other places.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, that's right.
Okay. Let's have ex parte disclosure before we vote on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you don't need to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we do.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if the motion fails, then you have an item
before you to take a vote on, and the ex parte would be necessary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: The motion to continue is not --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't need the ex parte.
MR. WEIGEL: Not yet, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Then in that case, we have a
motion on the floor, Commissioner Halas. Okay, Commissioner Halas
you want to say something?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say, is this on the
benefit of the citizens or is this on the benefit of the petitioner because
he's not here?
From what you're -- from what you stated earlier, it sounds to me
that this is in the benefit of the citizens because it could impact the
Page 125
November 29, 2005
neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhood, and so therefore --
but I'm very much surprised that the petitioner is not here.
And as Commissioner Henning said, I think there should be
something -- I'm not sure how we can handle this. But you would
think that you don't take something for granted, that you have to
realize that there is a possibility that even though it's on the summary
agenda or you may have an item on the consent agenda, that the
opportunity is there, because there's five commissioners, and each of
us obviously have different thought processes, and we can pull an item
off the agenda.
And I think it's their obligation to be here because they're taking
up not only our time, but they're taking up the citizens' time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, I agree. But we are where we are.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, we are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does your motion still stand?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could I ask the county attorney one
question? Is there any way that -- is there anything in our ordinances
in regards to something -- an issue of this nature where petitioner
requests to have this be continued because he didn't plan that this was
going to be pulled from the agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, no, there's nothing specific in that regard.
The board's prerogative, of course, is very broad, and that's why staff,
county manager, and county attorney are very careful in the agenda
index themselves that identifies the items, it indicates, this items
requests to be continued because it's never continued until the board
continues it.
And if the board makes the adjustment at the beginning of the
board meeting pursuant to known requests and information at that
time, that's one time when it can be done, or it can be continued later
on. It doesn't have to be continued. And it's purely at the hope -- it's
Page 126
November 29, 2005
at the hope of the petitioner. There's no sanction, there's no sanction
in the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm talking about the petitioner not
showing up.
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the --
MR. WEIGEL: The board is not forced to continue. If the board
doesn't continue, it hears the item to the extent that it can, and it will
make its decision based upon the record that is created. Staff will be
able to provide a presentation and answer questions to a certain extent,
but they can only answer questions to the extent that they have the
standing and the personal information, technical information to
answer, and they cannot answer for the petitioner. And questions that
you may have for the petitioner, you know, are met with silence and
could lead you to make a determination one way or another.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's where I'm leading this
to, because obviously we have a commissioner that this project is in
his district, so he's got some concerns about it, and yet the petitioner is
not here to answer these concern.
MR. WEIGEL: That is true.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And he knew that item was on the
agenda. He had -- well, was well notified in advance, and here we are
where he decides that he's got something more important than
addressing the issue that's before us today.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. One thing I will ask for the record, were
there any assurances made to the petitioner or petitioner's agent that
this would be continued by staff?
MR. MUDD: No. The petitioner asked that he wanted the item
continued.
MR. WEIGEL: And staff didn't say it's a done deal or anything
like that?
MR. MUDD: Nope. And then -- and then Commissioner Coyle
Page 127
_.~_._...._,..n",_._,_"~""___' .'.m.._...._".~__.·..._.·..,,_.___"_·_
November 29,2005
received this particular e-mail --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- at 10:29 this morning. The petitioner was here
this morning at nine o'clock.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Everybody have their questions
answered?
Let me ask one other question. This was on the summary
agenda. If Commissioner Henning's questions and my questions can
be properly answered by the petitioner, can it come on the summary
agenda the next time?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, do you
have any reason to believe that your questions might be answered
before that point in time or not?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, they won't be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They will not be, okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I think we ought to do
that out in the public. That's why I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, fair enough. Then we have a
motion to continue by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning is
Page 128
November 29, 2005
dissenting. It passes 4-1 for a continuance.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can we continue that to the 13th of
December?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. This year or next year?
MR. MUDD: This year, sir. Your next board meeting is the 13th
of December, sir. Is it the board's desire with that continuance to put a
date of 13 December on it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it was, I think it was. How does
that agenda look on the 13 th?
MR. MUDD: Not as good as this one, but better than the last
one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anything's better than the last one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
Where does that take us now?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this agenda has been covered.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: It's up to -- we're in -- excuse me. We're into
public comment at 11, and then we get into communications.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have a public comment?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we do. Connie Stegall-Fullmer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Connie Fullmer.
MS. FULLMER: For the record, Connie Fullmer. Good
afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners.
I'm here to talk about the Margood property and -- but before I do
that, I want to personally thank all of you commissioners and the staff
for all of the wonderful help that we had down in Goodland after
Wilma with ice and water and help with cleanup of the debris, and
Page 129
November 29, 2005
Goodland's looking pretty good. Still a little bit of damage going on.
But what I wanted to do, to bring you -- I know it's difficult for
staff to have a -- to be able to be -- to be able to see all around the
county what's going on and the damage that's done throughout the
county, and I also wanted to bring you all up to date, so we're trying to
be kind of eyes and ears down there for you for the county park
property .
I did take some pictures. What I wanted to talk about today is
what the Margood property looks like, and -- we won't dwell on them
a long time, but this is what the property still looks like today. There
really hasn't been any cleanup inside.
After the park property -- or the property of Margood was
purchased, the county installed a five-foot hurricane fence around it.
There's a lot of damage. This is the building that we're hoping -- we'll
see on that one in just a second. You can see the window has been
boarded up on the side there, or metal put over it, the main building.
This is the building that we're hoping to preserve. That's going to
be the interpretative center.
Again, this is from another side of the building. Here you can
see the roof damage. There's no roofing on there. There's no tarping,
and we're very concerned with all the weather that we've had and the
rain that water may be in there and may be damaging some of the
things that we wanted to preserve.
And then we can flip through some more and then -- as Mr.
Mudd is going through those, I will say that I did talk to Marla this
morning, and she said that Amanda Townsend was out Wednesday
with another county person to look at the property.
I don't know that they've been inside the facilities to see if there's
any damage, but we're really concerned about it. It looks very bad,
that it's not been cleaned up along the fencing, along Pier Avenue
here. This picture you can see all the metal work from the roofing
that's strung along the side of the fencing.
Page 130
November 29, 2005
And some of the dock area's been damaged and some of the
docking is down in the water. So that's what the property looks like
today.
And I know there are a lot of park areas in the county and a lot of
public land, and it's hard to get around to all of it.
But this area's 2.5 acres inside Goodland and it's right in the
center of town, and some of the awnings on those little cottages that
Jim is showing have been blown down, trees are all still down. So just
to bring you up to date on that and in hopes that we can get some of
that cleaned up soon.
The main thing also that I wanted to talk to you about today is
the final reports or report that we got from parks and rec., a copy of
the build-out of the park, and the interpretative center.
It was spring when you partnered up and purchased the property,
this last spring, and a management report was required by Florida
Communities Trust to be prepared and sent, and Amanda sent that
report in about a month or so ago to Florida Communities Trust, and it
outlined all the basic things that needed to be summarized for the
grant.
But in the back of the packet is a timetable for the build-out.
And at the very top of this you can see October two oh five. Right
here, they're starting off you with an archaeological study, and we're
already a couple months behind on that because that hasn't started yet.
But the main thing I want to point out is that it's at phase one and
phase two. And the phase one is basically the rezoning of the site
development plan and those types of things, but the SDP isn't really on
target to get started until about October of two of seven. That's two
years out from now before that even gets onboard.
Again, the whole property is fenced off, no access to it at all by
the residents, which was always one of the main focal points for
people in the community to go to and -- for coffee and breakfast and
lunch and so on. So right now it's sort of a dead area in the
Page 131
November 29, 2005
community .
The phase two, where there's actually some of the beginning of
the construction work, it doesn't really get started until around two oh
nine. So we're looking at 2010 before we have access to the property.
One of the big things that we all worked hard on, you guys, as
well as the community, and it was a major battle this last year, we all
remember, trying to talk about whether to keep the Palm Point
property for a boat park or sell it, and part of the offset was the
knowledge that you all had that you knew that Margood was going to
be a community park.
So I'd like to ask you to look at that timeline, see if we can open
up the area a little bit at a time maybe. Knowing that the building
itself, the interpretation center, interpreter's center, might not be ready
for a long time.
But I ask that you look at it. We need a place. The kids don't
have a place there. We're in the streets. We're literally in the streets.
They've only got places in the street to ride their bikes and play.
So we're just asking that you see if we can speed that up. If we
can't use it, the Margood property, because we don't have a zoning
change yet, maybe we can use the Dolphin Point property or Palm
Point property because we have zoning change on that. Either way,
please give us some land that we can open up this season if we could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think it should be stressed a
little more strongly also that that Palm Point property, which we
wanted so much for a boat launch area, has been now chain link
fenced for five years. And, you know, the island is only, how much?
MS. FULLMER: Quarter of a square mile.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three quarters of a square mile?
MS. FULLMER: One quarter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, one quarter of a square mile
throughout the entire island. And we've got two of these nice pieces
Page 132
--'''"---''~'
November 29, 2005
of property, probably the only things left on the island that has clear
land, and we've got them all chain link fenced with no option for them
to even open to let the people go to picnic or play ball on or
something. I think we should be more sensitive to the needs of that
community, and maybe there's something we can do to work together
to move that along.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One thing that you can do is
speed up the permitting process, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's where your issue is,
really, on all this. It's not that, you know, things -- you don't want
things to happen there. It's permitting, whether it be local, state, or
federal. And I have an item on -- that I want to talk about, permitting
process in the -- our U. S. government, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe we could just open it up for
them to have picnics on or something. We did open it up one day for
a community picnic, didn't we?
MS. FULLMER: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The Palm Point one. I mean, what
we would want to do is be good stewards to the land that we own and
at least keep it cleaned up and looking decent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I should have gotten her to stop talking
rather than you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. You know, I like what
you're saying. You know, we're back to our roots of civics
involvement and communities doing something for themselves.
Is there a possibility we might be able to get parks and rec. to
work with the community to allow the community to go in there and
have a cleanup day to be able to restore as much as possible, maybe
taking some ownership in the whole thing to help restore it? You
Page 133
"_.~--"-"".""-'<
November 29, 2005
come up with something that's realistic about what the hours of
operation are, who gets to man the gate keys. Why do we have to
have park personnel that hold the keys to the gates when it's going to
be for a community type thing, and making sure we understand the
fact it's not going to be open at night where we can have kids running
wild in there or activities that wouldn't be considered conducive to the
neighborhood.
I'm for whatever we can do to be able to make this resource
available now.
MS. FULLMER: May I say something else? Just as a different
note, our civic association building had considerable damage. The
roof was taken off, and there's a lot of water damage in the hall, the
mold, so we're not sure we're even going to be able to use that facility.
So that even cuts us down even more.
But I like -- really appreciate your comment about community
involvement, and I mentioned that to Marla. Maybe we can have a
couple of work days and the community can get in and try and do
some of the cleanup. We'd be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. If I'm available, I'd be
happy to corne down and supervise.
MS. FULLMER: Yeah, I'm sure you would.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And maybe we could fast track this thing
and cut our permitting process from five years to four years. Four and
a half maybe.
Okay. Do we need to take any more action on that? County
Manager, you know what --
MR. MUDD: I've got Marla taking a look at the time schedule.
I've talked to her about putting park benches and garage cans and
whatnot at the Point property so we could open up that gate in order to
do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think community involvement in
helping clean the place up will be a motivator to get this thing done.
Page 134
November 29,2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Because if you've got people who are
anxious to work and get it cleaned up, I think things in government
will move a little faster, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But aren't we supposed to have all
the debris from the hurricane damage out by the 1 st of December so
that it can be picked up so that FEMA can pay for that? It's still all
behind the fences laying there. Trees haven't even been cleaned up or
anything. What do we do with hurricane -- with FEMA dollars? We
want to get FEMA dollars to correct that, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. But the stuff that's covered by
insurance and whatnot isn't covered by the FEMA debris removal
issue, so that becomes an -- so we've got a contract out in order to get
some of it. It's basically private homeowners bringing their stuff to
the side of the road. When you start getting into the community, the
government, the things that are covered by insurance, those are the
things, the not-reimbursable mode, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. One last question then. I
also worried when I saw the roof off. Actually I went down to see the
property, and that's where they have all of that old stuff that -- you
know, that they've preserved forever and ever and ever, the old movie
theater and so forth. Well, if that isn't somehow protected, we're going
to lose all that stuff if they -- if they have a timeline of five years from
now to begin to work on the thing.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. I can't tell you what the facility looks
like on the inside, but our stuff was supposed to be inspected to make
sure that the integrity of the -- go ahead.
MS. RAMSEY: I can help with that. Marla Ramsey, for the
record, public administrator. On Wednesday after the hurricane we
had teams out into the various park sites doing assessments in order to
get all the information over to risk management as to all of the damage
that we had. Margood was on that list.
Page 135
November 29, 2005
We did submit an insurance claim on that. Facilities management
and one of my staff went down on Wednesday of this past week to
look at the roof to try and see if they could do something in the
meantime while we're waiting on the insurance element of it.
The trees that are down inside -- you have to understand, we have
looked at priorities. Priorities are getting kids back on ball fields and
kids into our activity facilities. And this is, of course, a facility that's
not being utilized at this moment, and so it is at the bottom of our list.
We have a contract with True Green to remove existing trees in
all of our parks, and we received a quote from them last week and
we're working to get a permit -- or a PO open so that they can start
their business.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Marla, I have to just say, you say it's
not being utilized at the moment, but if they've got chain link fence
around the thing that's five feet tall, of course it's not being used.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. We have -- we did put a fence
around it in the process in order to make sure that we didn't have any
liability issues. There were docks that were leaning that we thought
were dangerous. There are still pads sitting out there that we need to
have removed because they're tripping hazards. So staff did put up a
chain link fence in order to make sure that we didn't get a liability
claim against the county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Marla, in regards to -- you've only
got so much money that's budgeted in regards to park resource; is that
correct?
MS. RAMSEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what is the time line for -- take
out the -- out of the equation permitting. Right now we're just looking
at when were you going to address the needs of refurbishing this area
and to open it up to the public?
MS. RAMSEY: Our goal was, is before hurricane, was to come
Page 136
November 29, 2005
in and clean this site up as much as we could so that we could open
the gate and people could get down to the water and walk it, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: The hurricane has pushed that back. As you
saw, we were looking at October. Now we're back farther in that plan
than that.
A goal would be to go ahead and get access to it for a while,
while we're doing some archaeological determinations of the site,
because it is some significance there, that we want to make sure that
we look at that prior to doing construction.
Our time frame that we have right now is to look at a rezone and
SDP bid. We've got $275,000 allocated toward that project. The first
phase is almost a million dollars, and the second phase is a million and
three.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so that money has to
be budgeted each year. And what -- the 275,000, is that -- was
budgeted just for this particular year?
MS. RAMSEY: We have some of that budgeted for this
particular year, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And then next year you're
hoping that you get another million dollars to budget this?
MS. RAMSEY: It's probably out another year off of that. Given
all the programming that we have to provide --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MS. RAMSEY: -- and the number of dollars that we receive and
the debt that we're paying, we end up with a very small pot of money
left that we have to stretch over a number of different projects, and we
do phase most of our parks. Eagle Lakes is a phased park. We haven't
even gotten to the Kauffmann property. Orangetree is out there as
well. And so we have parks in various locations that we're trying to
feed money to and try and get them open as quickly as we can.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so you've taken the initiative
Page 137
November 29, 2005
and have prioritized the particular parks. Where does this particular
park fall on the priority list?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, it is on the list for some things this year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: As is the Goodland boat ramp has got its design
for this year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: And the permitting process. You've got
Orangetree on for design this year, we've got phase two for Eagle
Lakes on this year, and then the completion of North Collier on this
year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My next question is, the
$275,000 that's been allocated for this year's budget, does that include
not only archaeological renderings, findings in that area, but does it
also address any permits that need to be processed?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: It includes the rezone, because currently it is not
__ it's not in the right zoning element. It includes the SDP process as
well, as well as cleaning up the site itself.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we've got two -- we've got two
situations here. We've got one of getting the permits, but the other one
is the funding of this thing through the next few years and finding the
funding to direct this; is that correct?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: And we're looking at impact fees at this moment
in time, but if you'd like to give me some ad valorem, we might be
able to accelerate it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MS. RAMSEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So phase one is to begin what,
Page 138
November 29, 2005
October 2007 and end April 2008?
MS. RAMSEY: Actually, part of this whole process starts from
now on. The actual construction of the phase one is slated at this point
in time for October of 2007 to July of 2008 at a cost of about a million
dollars.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's it.
MS. FULLMER: May I just say one more thing?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MS. FULLMER: No?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MS. FULLMER: Thank you. Goodland is one of the oldest
communities in Collier County, behind Everglades City, Chokoloskee.
We don't have a park. You know, we're were basically settled in
1949. We don't have a park. So, you know, I know that there are lots
of new communities coming onboard in Collier County and they all
need parks, but we still don't have a park.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we're working on it.
MS. FULLMER: That's all I'm saying, you know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're working on it.
MS. FULLMER: Thank you so much. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Attorney?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS-
CONTINUED
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you. I wanted to just mention one
thing to you today, probably put you on notice for the next board
meeting, and that is, as you are aware, the Pelican Bay annexation is
moving its way through the city council process with City of Naples.
Page 139
>"_"'_'_<~M_'__'_"'_~
November 29, 2005
I believe they have a second vote on an annexation referendum
ordinance for December 4th. I believe that's next Wednesday. And if
they should approve it with their second vote, there will be a
referendum election to consider the approval of the annexation of
Pelican Bay early this next year.
As you are aware, the County Attorney Office, working with
county staff, Jim Mudd, his group, have reported to you from time to
time both from a factual and a legal basis where we think that there
are issues that may tend to affect the interest of Collier County and
Pelican Bay, and, perhaps, outside of Pelican Bay as well related to
the Pelican Bay annexation, if it were to occur.
Included among those issue has to do with the taking into
account, or I should say the not taking into account, the ownership of
Collier County property within the Pelican Bay subdivision and
whether it legally, technically, and appropriately, should be counted
toward the consents that are required by state law for the process to
move forward even as far as it has.
So what I would ask the board to consider between now and the
next board meeting is to watch what the city council does and
authorize county attorney, working with Jim Mudd and county staff,
to fill in the gaps in any additional information that the city has or
should have, and report back to you if we believe there are
improprieties in the process that may affect county interests with the
thought of asking you potentially for direction, if appropriate, to file
appropriate contests in court related to the process if our report should
indicate that to you at the next board meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is directed to County Manager
Jim Mudd. Where -- I know that you've had some contact with the
city manager. Has there been any paperwork that's addressed any of
the interlocal agreements that may be involved in this process? Have
you gotten any paperwork?
Page 140
_._,.'k_·"'''~'~·····~··'_'_'·_''····
November 29, 2005
MR. MUDD: No, sir. The board was pretty specific on what I
could and could not do almost a year ago as far as negotiations were
concerned. Any discussion I've had with the city manager I've
basically said, you know, if you have an idea, or based on the
discussions, please put in writing so I can bring it to the Board of
County Commissioners and get their direction.
I have not received any paperwork whatsoever as far as ideas are
concerned to bring in front of the board from city manager, nor have I
seen any interlocal agreements to talk about any particular issues.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. That's interesting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I don't know if reclaimed
water is still an issue here. Is that something that we're going to be
talking about or not?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll respond to the extent that I can. Reclaimed--
excuse me. Reclaimed water is an issue of policy of the Board of
County Commissioners at the present time.
It would appear to enter into play upon a change in status of
Pelican Bay to no longer be part of the unincorporated part of Collier
County, so that's something to be reckoned with administratively if
and upon annexation of Pelican Bay.
It is not an issue that I would say is ripe for litigation at the
present time. In fact, this issue was brought up to the court previously,
and the board's motion to -- the county's motion to dismiss was, in
fact, approved because it has not become a viable, concrete issue since
annexation has not yet occurred. It's still out there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Let me make an observation
concerning this issue. There is no way that the issue of water or any
other kind of support from the county can be determined without an
interlocal agreement between the city and the county which would be
subject to the approval of this board. So whatever happens at the polls
on February the 2nd or 3rd, whatever day it is, is, in many cases,
Page 141
November 29,2005
irrelevant, in my opinion.
Let's suppose that the voters of Naples do, in fact, say, yes, we're
willing to annex Pelican Bay. The county -- city council can't
possibly complete an annexation without working out some sort of
interlocal agreement with the county, I don't think. I mean, it certainly
wouldn't make financial sense for them to do otherwise.
So at some point in time there has to be a meeting of the minds or
an agreement to disagree between the county and the city with respect
to the annexation.
And I would not like to be placed in the position of trying to keep
people from voting on what they want to do. I certainly would like to
be in the position to negotiate an interlocal agreement that is in the
best interest of the taxpayers of Collier County, and we have the
opportunity to do that regardless of how this vote goes in February.
Is that -- am I correct in saying this, David?
MR. WEIGEL: You are, yes. I'm just bringing this to your
attention, because as of December 4th, if that's when the vote is taken,
there will be a 30-day period within which any improprieties of the
process to date, that's prior to election, might be contested in a court,
and beyond which then there is a type of finality which may well
prevent the opportunity to go to court.
And so certainly today it was not to put you in a position to make
any choices but to indicate that there is a period of time within which
you will have an opportunity to make a choice and give staff any
authorization or direction or nondirection at that point, as you will.
And it would appear probably the next board meeting would be the
opportunity to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you think that any action we were to
take should be directed to keep the vote from taking place, or can the
vote take place and the county still preserve the right to challenge any
legal improprieties?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that the ability to challenge diminishes
Page 142
November 29, 2005
because the questions of an election, an appropriate election are
different issues than the ability of property owners with property
rights, which the county is a substantial property owner in Pelican
Bay, to this point has been denied property rights, and curiously with a
disparity of opinion, because it's my understanding that property
owners -- other property owners who don't pay taxes are counted in
the consent aspect toward annexation, but Collier County's not been
given the opportunity, but based upon the fact that its property is tax
exempt.
So there's some interesting legal issues here that relate to the
propriety of the process to date, which would be different from, you
might say, the election and the propriety of the election itself, and
there is a time frame which will come to an end to raise those issues in
any appropriate form.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But the vote by the people in the City of
Naples has really nothing to do with the decision by Pelican Bay. The
vote by the people of the City of Naples merely says, yes, we would
like to annex Pelican Bay or, no, we would not like to annex Pelican
Bay. It doesn't raise the issue about whether or not Pelican Bay has
completed the necessary legal steps to be allowed to be annexed; is
that -- is that true?
MR. WEIGEL: No, I don't think so. Two things. One, the
election itself is an election of two bodies, the City of Naples as it
currently exists and Pelican Bay as it exists as a subdivision.
But secondly, the question of an election is separate and apart
from the issues of the propriety leading up to the appropriateness of
there becoming an election in the first place, which is upon a
compilation of consent -- of consents that has a formula under law,
and our research has been that the county has not applied into the
formula that we think the law would require that it apply. I don't
know if I've answered your question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you have, yes. I think I
Page 143
November 29, 2005
understand more clearly now.
So what you're suggesting is that we -- that you come back to us
in the next meeting in December and advise us --
MR. WEIGEL: Just chat a little further and see --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- if you think there is sufficient
impropriety for us to proceed with something.
MR. WEIGEL: And in the meantime, I would either by a nod of
heads or by not telling us not to, I would think that as your agents and
advisors that we would work with the city to obtain any information
that they have relating to, among other things, the consents. Because
the information I have to this point is that they do have a certain
number of consents that were given to them, which they haven't even
viewed to confirm for signatures or anything else, because those were
tendered subsequent to the initial grouping of consents which
purportedly put them over the 50 percent plus one.
But that's taking -- that's not taking into account the county
acreage, which increases the required number of consents if you take
the county acreage into account. And it has not been reviewed, is my
understanding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: There's some interesting arithmetic there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I understand.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think that there should be
some preliminary negotiations so that both the people of the City of
Naples and the people of Pelican Bay have some kind of an
understanding of where the talks may be going as far as interlocal
agreements. And as the county manager has stated, that there hasn't
been any movement in that direction by the city manager, which I
would feel that people in Naples would like to have some kind of an
idea of, you know, what's transpiring and what's taking place.
And I have some concerns about that, because I don't feel that it's
Page 144
.. ,~--
------_.--.,~---~---
November 29, 2005
fair for both sides. And I think that they need to have some kind of an
understanding that there -- first of all, there is some type of negotiation
going on, and it is written down on paper so that it's available for
people to see and it's not there. So I have some concerns about that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then County Attorney is asking
us just to give him a nod of the head to report back to us at the next
meeting concerning whatever action we should take. Okay. Do we
see three nods? Yep, okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Looks like you've got it.
Okay. Anything else?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, one other thing. This morning you
thanked me for working for you, and I want to thank you for letting
me work for you as well. I appreciate that very much. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's been fun.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any -- we'll have to start with
Commissioner Halas this time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that it was -- it's a
pleasure to work with this commission and I hope that everybody had
a belated Thanksgiving. And, of course, we're moving into the
holiday season, and I wish everybody and their family the best of
health and, as we move closer to Christmas, that we all get into the
Christmas spirit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bah humbug.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hate following Commissioner
Halas. Could we go in a different order?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. You want to relinquish your
time, don't you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll relinquish my time to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's wonderful.
Page 145
___"_"~"__"'~"'.'''J__~'_'____"__'~~'.'''_''''
November 29, 2005
I have absolutely nothing to say.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Oh, they're simple ones.
I would like to ask all of my fellow commissioners if they would
like to work with me on writing a letter to the governor under
Commissioner Coyle's signature, of course, but on behalf of all of us,
to ask him -- to tell him that we would like someone on the growth
management impact fee task force to actually represent Collier County
rather -- you know, he has somebody on there except it only
represents a very small minority of a special interest group, and I
would like to see somebody who's representing the rest of us on there.
I was wondering if you would agree.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we're too late.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Direct the chair, and I'll and I'll
second it. You could direct the chair to write a letter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'd like to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think we're too late in the
process. We should have probably approached this early on because I
think there's only one or two more meetings left.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, even the one or
two more, even if we could -- even if we could suggest somebody.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me -- let me briefly address that.
Commissioner Halas is right. If we get somebody on there now,
people who oppose us will always have the argument, well, you had
somebody on the committee; you had representation.
The problem is that when we put somebody on that committee,
unless we're sure that they're going to listen to that person and that
there is a fair chance that that person can achieve a positive outcome,
then all they -- all we will do is lend legitimacy to that committee
because we will have had our designee there.
Page 146
...~.,.,_..._---""~--,-_._~----
- ..,",-,.,."~,_..._.~-"~-~-~."_.",-_._~-,_.._,,,-",,,.,,..,..""""-"'_.~.,--,.__.,~._-"'.~~,........-..,-,.-..
November 29, 2005
And I think our best shot at this is to send a letter to the governor
emphasizing how our input has been ignored rather than asking to get
on the committee at this point in time where we know it's going to be
ignored anyway, and making the case with the governor that this
growth management bill is not in the best interest of Collier County.
And I think we can do that in a way that doesn't offend the
governor, because let's face it, he wanted a growth management bill.
It's not his fault that the legislature let him down. They gave him a
bad bill and they've convinced him that it's a good bill.
And all of the -- all of the propaganda coming out of Tallahassee
is designed exactly to do that. And so Governor Bush is probably of
the opinion that this bill is a good bill and it does wonderful things for
the counties in Florida, and it might do that for a lot of the counties,
but not the counties who have been effective in growth management,
and those are the counties that we should be encouraging to continue
doing the right things.
But I would -- you're right, we need to take some kind of action,
but I'm afraid that it's too late now to even try to get on that growth
management bill (sic), and I'll tell you, it was too late from the
beginning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was stacked.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, it was stacked. Look who the
people were who made the decisions about who got on the committee.
We could have had two or three of us on that committee and they
would have ignored us. We would have had no opportunity to affect
the outcome of that.
And -- but I think your idea is a good one, and I think we should
work jointly on a letter to the governor trying to make him understand
that we're not trying to fight him on a bill that he thinks is important to
Florida. We're merely trying to retain the best features of a growth
management plan that we've developed here in Collier County that
works for our community.
Page 147
.--.--..,"_.-
_'_~"-'~'e""'_'_"_""""'_"'__'_""""___'__'~'___-"-_..~~
November 29, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then I think that that's a
wonderful idea, and you've pointed out very clearly, both you and
Commissioner Halas, and I think we ought to move forward with that
immediately and ask you to write that letter under -- you know, on
behalf of all of us if the rest of the commissioners agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what I will do is I will write the
letter. And I've got to be careful about communicating with you about
the letter, but I'd like you to see it somehow first and have some input
into it.
How do we do that, David?
MR. WEIGEL: You can't do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can I do it at the next meeting?
MR. WEIGEL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Why don't I draft this letter, bring
it to the board, the next meeting --
MR. WEIGEL: You could even send it to them at the next
meeting, but just be sure you don't get an answer back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I don't want any replies now.
MS. FILSON: Can you do it at a workshop?
MR. WEIGEL: You could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know.
MS. FILSON: Because you have numerous workshops.
MR. MUDD: Between now and the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, let me see whenever I can
get this done. It's going to take a little time to draft this properly. It's
got to be very carefully crafted. So I will work on this and get it to the
board either in a workshop or at our next meeting for the board's
review and input, because I think it should be something we can all
agree to.
Okay. That's it, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I had two more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, no.
Page 148
..,...._-,-~~..",'"...--'''---
November 29, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Listen, that was a good one, the first
start, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Next one, I read in the paper this
morning, and I thought, this was such a cool idea, I thought I'd just
bring it up to everybody. Because of the high gasoline prices,
somebody was suggesting in the letters to the editor that maybe we
write the attorney general and him to investigate the gasoline prices
down here versus the other cities in Florida and see if there's price
gouging going on. I was wondering what you guys think of that idea.
I thought it was a great idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's too busy running for
governor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It might just be a good thing for him
to run for governor. This could be a, you know, a feather in his cap.
What do you think?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, gas prices here in Naples
have also been higher. You can go outside this county, and even
though Lee County is at the maximum gas tax, we've also found that it
was at least five to 10 cents more a gallon here in Naples. I guess
that's part -- goes with part of the address.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it shouldn't be 40 to 50 cents.
You know, our prices have even been the same as Cleveland, and yet
when my brother-in-law got down, it was $1.94 in Cleveland and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I can comment on that,
because I got involved years ago with the gas protest. I even led the
darn thing. We sent everybody --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And look what it did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We sent everybody in East
Naples to one station. And I remember we had the industry very mad
at us. And the only thing we did, we lowered the price like two cents
per gallon for about two weeks, and then everything returned to
Page 149
H""__""__"'__'H_"_"'_'W~'_'___'_"_-'~';"~___'~_"_-
November 29, 2005
normal.
I'll tell you what, it's free market. There's nothing we're going to
do that's going to have any real lasting effect. One of the reasons we
are higher, too, is the fact that we exercise our right for a full gas tax.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, Lee County does, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A lot of other localities don't.
That's true, but then the difference between the two isn't 40 cents a
gallons.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's only five cents.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's more than that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The -- well, I would like to make the
observation, there are places in Naples where you can get gasoline
substantially cheaper than the prices that you're quoting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the important thing is, people need
to search out those places and go there to get their gas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And they'll drive the prices
down in the other stations by doing it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I've got a feeling that our
clientele in Naples has got so much money--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It doesn't make a difference.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whenever the tank needs filling,
they could care less what the price is on the board. They pull in and
they fill up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know where the highest prices
in all of Collier County are? By Naples Manor. Isn't that something?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's strange.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You'd think that maybe where
they can't afford it, the prices would be lower, but it's -- 2.69.
Page 150
November 29, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think that this would be
good public service by the Naples Daily News to make a survey, and
each day put it in their paper where the gas prices are the lowest.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That would be a good idea. Here's
where to shop for gas today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are you listening, JeffLytle?
Here's your chance to do something really great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. I think that's a good idea, because
there are places you can get it a lot cheaper here in Collier County if
you just search them out. And you're absolutely right, most people in
Collier County -- well, at least in Naples, don't drive that much. And
so if you don't drive that much, what difference does it make what the
cost is? I mean, it might be a couple hundred dollars a year to you,
you know, so -- but it's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe in your neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I know. But I'm just saying in
some of the neighborhoods people just don't drive that much.
Commissioner Henning, bring us to a close.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have four items, but --
well maybe I'll have five. I just want to point out that me and
Commissioner Fiala wasn't the ones that were talking all day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the first item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala did a pretty good
job of talking.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any interest or support
by this board to support the Lee County commissioners on the issue of
freshwater releases from Okeechobee?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I for one, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Through a proclamation
Page 151
_._.~., "^...-.,-,>"-".~_.-....._'-"~'-~"---_'''»'''_--~.'_'
November 29, 2005
resolution? Okay. Next agenda? I'll find out what we can do for
them.
Is there any interest in directing staff to modify the right-of-way
or median landscaping master plan to plant material that's more
conducive of high winds since we experienced this hurricane and
witnessed what it does to, you know, response and some of the
taxpayers' money as far as landscaping?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did we have a lot of problem other than
ficus trees?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We did?
MR. FEDER: We did have some other problems. For the record,
Norman Feder, transportation administrator.
Weare modifying some of our plantings right now based on the
results of the last couple years and the nature of some of the trees and
how they survived. We've got some that in many places are very
hearty yet the same species got hit in some areas. But we had some
where it was obvious that that particular planting didn't do well, and
those are not things we're continuing with.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'll take that off my list
then.
Is there any interest -- and Commissioner Fiala brought part of
this up -- to give staff direction on what we could do to limit --
because we're seeing a lot of this -- of apartments being converted?
Some of these apartments that the Board of Commissioners have
given density bonuses over the years, and only to be, you know, taken
out of the market and taking our workforce and turning them
upside-down.
Is there any interest on it to see if we can -- what we can do to
limit this in the future?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is, I'm not sure what
Page 152
-~--"~.",..,.~
..._~.~."-~-
November 29, 2005
legal ramifications we might have in this process.
What happens, I think -- and maybe the county attorney can kind
of enlighten us on this before we proceed. I think this is a great idea.
My concern is, when somebody comes in and says, I want to
build this project and I want density bonus because I'm going to
address professional housing, workforce housing, gap housing,
whatever, and then as -- and it's all rental units, and then all of a
sudden this person decides he's going to sell this property, and the new
property owner comes in and decides, you know what, I paid a
tremendous amount of money for this piece of property, so now I'm
going to go forward and I'm going to turn these now from rental units
to condos.
And even though we made the -- on the initial request somebody
came in and asked us for density bonus, how does that carry through
with the next property owner? Because this is what I think is
happening, when they flip the property, and then somebody comes in
and buys these apartments and says, oh, by the way, I think I can
gamer even more money out of this thing by -- I bought this property
as rental, now I'm going to turn it into condos.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, a couple things come to mind. One is that
I think the situation you're describing is one where there's probably,
more times than not, no zoning change or you might call it regulatory
review that comes before the Board of County Commissioners. It's
just an entrepreneur exercising the ability to further develop the land
to its highest and best use.
Now, in some cases, of course, highest and best use may be
based upon -- over facts relating to the land that have changed over
time where highest and best use is based on, betting on, a rezone,
things of that nature. That's where the board obviously has an ability
to be involved from the regulatory process and apply to some degree,
you know, its police -- its police and health, safety, welfare powers as
developed in their policies that you may have.
Page 153
November 29, 2005
In the case of a new development where the county does have an
opportunity at an approval process, in regulatory process, it's
conceivable that the board could be able to implement by virtue of,
you might say, the award or the ability to build -- that it may approve
limitations on the further developability of the land.
Now, again, that has to be very carefully administrated,
orchestrated, if you will, so that it's not a taking. But at the same time,
if they are moving from one develop ability to another level, there is a
possibility, I think, that the county could have an opportunity to put
some restraints on the further uses of that property.
In this case the conversion, you know, from rental to condo being
what you have in mind, I think it -- I think it's worth investigating. It
certainly isn't something I can tell you can be easily done, but I think
that there's a possibility there may be some variations on that that
could achieve some positive results.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the concern is that we gave
a density bonus to address affordable housing, professional housing,
and -- by the first person that built it, and then he turns around after he
builds it and has it in operation for a year or so --
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- then he flips it, and now it -- all
that density, now it turns into condos, and the condos are not in the
price range where the average person can obtain this.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we have this as a topic for
affordable housing workshop when it comes up?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can just put this on the agenda--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and deal with it then, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I think it's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my last thing is, the Board
Page 154
November 29, 2005
of Commissioners entered into a development contribution agreement
some two or more years ago to build a new section of road called
Logan Boulevard between Vanderbilt Beach and Immokalee Road.
That was to be completed this year. It hasn't started, okay?
Now, the excuse -- the excuse is, they don't have the permits.
Well, my concern is, they don't have their permits in the development
contribution agreement. It is vesting them for their property that they
haven't got their permits, it is paying their impact fees for the property
that they haven't got their permits, so is there something going on
where it's slowing down to see if they will get a permit, a building
permit on their property? And in the meantime, we're sitting in limbo.
We have no steering on this, but yet, in my opinion, the DCA is not
valid.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is not what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is not valid because they had a
completion date of 2005. And I want to see about getting this possibly
back on the agenda to -- for the board to confirm that the DCA is
voided, not valid, worthy of trash or shredder or something like that,
and let's continue doing something about building this road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Sounds good me. Can we get
that on the agenda, too, or a workshop somewhere?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, as fast as we can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have we got three nods?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got three nods.
Is that all, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all, folks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then in that case, we are--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Commissioner, I had three -- three
items that I talked to you about --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nice try.
Page 155
".---".,..--.---.-""..,----.'.-.
November 29, 2005
MR. MUDD: -- before lunch, and I think all of those items
should be on the workshop agenda for housing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: And I'll add those three things down there, and
we'll discuss them then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Excellent, excellent. As long as -- as
well as my discussion concerning density issues.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Definitely.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And with that, we are adjourned.
***** Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried 4/1 with Commissioner Henning opposed, that the
following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be
approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPLES, WHICH
AGREEMENT SUPERSEDES SEVERAL SEPARATE PRIOR
IMP ACT FEE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE
PARTIES AND PROVIDES FOR (1) THE COLLECTION OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES BY THE CITY, (2) THE
REMITTANCE OF COLLECTED IMPACT FEES TO THE
COUNTY BY THE CITY, AND (3) ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE
FEES TO BE RETAINED BY THE CITY.
Item #16A2
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF
Page 156
November 29, 2005
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AND THE CITY OF EVERGLADES, WHICH AGREEMENT
SUPERSEDES SEVERAL SEP ARA TE PRIOR IMP ACT FEE
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND
PROVIDES FOR (1) THE COLLECTION OF COLLIER COUNTY
IMPACT FEES BY THE CITY, (2) THE REMITTANCE OF
COLLECTED IMPACT FEES TO THE COUNTY BY THE CITY,
AND (3) ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE FEES TO BE RETAINED
BY THE CITY.
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2005-406: THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A
FLORIDA DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES GRANTS-
IN-AID APPLICATION AND A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF
THE APPLICATION TO FUND AN INTERPRETIVE TRAIL
PROJECT AT THE CONSERVATION COLLIER OTTER
MOUND PRESERVE FOR $5,002 (OF WHICH $2,501 WILL BE
REIMBURSABLE).
Item #16A4
AN APPLICATION BY LUCY HAIR SALON FOR THE JOB
CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND THE FEE
PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Item #16A5
CP-2005-08: CARNY-05-AR-8583, ANNIE ALVAREZ,
ATHLETICS/SPECIAL EVENTS SUPERVISOR, COLLIER
COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT,
REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THE ANNUAL
Page 157
November 29, 2005
SNOWFEST CARNIVAL ON DECEMBER 3 AND 4, 2005, AT
THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK, LOCATED AT 3300
SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD.
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2005-407: RELEASING THE COUNTY'S
INTEREST IN TRACT l3E, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF
LELY RESORT, PHASE ELEVEN, PLAT BOOK 23, PAGES 52
THROUGH 55, PUBLIC RECORDS, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 2005-408: AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO UPDATE THE PROCEDURES
FOR EXPEDITING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
FOR QUALIFIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 2005-409: TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR
EXPEDITING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR
QUALIFIED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FAST
TRACK REGULATORY PROCESS PROGRAM; PROVIDING
FOR CODIFICATION OF THIS POLICY AND PROCEDURES;
AND, TO AUTHORIZE AN ADDITIONAL PERMANENT
POSITION OF PRINCIPAL PLANNER WITHIN THE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, TO SERVE AS THE
OVERALL PROJECT MANAGER OF THE FAST TRACK
Page 158
November 29,2005
PROGRAM AT A TOTAL BUDGETED FY06 COST OF $100,000
FOR ALL PAY, BENEFITS, TAXES AND OPERATIONAL
EXPENSES AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THIS
SAME AMOUNT.
Item # 16A9
RESOLUTION 2005-410: EMERGENCY DECLARATION IN
SUPPORT OF HURRICANE WILMA RELIEF AND RECOVERY
OPERATIONS: RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO ALLOW
COUNTY STAFF TO ISSUE TEMPORARY USE PERMITS FOR
BANNERS AT A REDUCED TEMPORARY FEE OF $25.00,
WHICH PERMITS WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FOR A PERIOD
NOT TO EXCEED SIX (6) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE
BOARDS RESOLUTION, AND TO DIRECT THE COUNTY
MANAGER TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND ENFORCEMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENT FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMITS DUE TO
DAMAGE CAUSED BY HURRICANE WILMA AND TO DIRECT
THE COUNTY MANAGER TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND
ENFORCEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT TO REPLACE CODE
REQUIRED LANDSCAPING.
Item #16Bl
TO AWARD BID # 06-3912 PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF
INORGANIC AND ORGANIC MULCH FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF ROADWAY MEDIANS AND COUNTY
GROUNDS. ($550,000)
Item #16Cl - Moved to Item #10I
Item # 16C2
Page 159
.~~~-~_._.- -,.,.".~~"."...,.,"-~._,<",-",,-.,----"--""
November 29, 2005
THE PURCHASE OF COUNTY-STANDARDIZED
COMPONENTS AND SERVICES PERTAINING TO
W ASTEW A TER COLLECTIONS TELEMETRY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $245,093.00 PROJECT 73922.
Item #16C3 - Moved to Item #10K
Item #16C4 - Moved to Item #IOJ
Item #16Dl
THE PURCHASE OF FURNISHINGS FOR NORTH COLLIER
REGIONAL PARK IN THE AMOUNT OF $273,825.85 FROM
OFFICE FURNITURE AND DESIGN CONCEPTS.
Item #16D2
TO AWARD BID NO. 05-3893 EAGLE LAKES PHASE II
IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION OF PAVILION AND
TENNIS COURTS TO WELCH TENNIS COURTS, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $220,744 AND BID NO. 05-3893 EAGLE LAKES
PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION OF STORAGE
BUILDING TO SAND STONE BUILDERS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$144,000.
Item #16E1
THE ADDITION OF THE CLASSIFICATION DIRECTOR
STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT TO THE 2006 FISCAL YEAR
PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND THE REMOVAL OF
THE DIRECTOR ROAD MAINTENANCE FROM THE 2006
Page 160
November 29, 2005
FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN.
Item # l6E2
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR ON-SITE GRANT TRAINING.
Item #16E3
AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ELECTRICAL FACILITIES TO
SERVE THE COURTHOUSE ANNEX AND PARKING DECK, AT
A COST NOT TO EXCEED $27.00, PROJECT 520102.
Item #16E4
THE AUTHORIZATION OF AN EXPENDITURE OF A SUM NOT
TO EXCEED $3,453.89, RESULTING FROM THE BOARDS
OCTOBER 26, 2004 APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM l6E(3), TO
RECLASSIFY CERTAIN COUNTY EMPLOYMENT
CLASSIFICATIONS FROM EXEMPT TO NON-EXEMPT
UNDER FLSA.
Item #16Fl
A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY A FY 06 TOURISM
GRANT AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF NAPLES
FOR CATEGORY A CITY OF NAPLES PROJECTS, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $125,000.00. PROJECT NUMBERS 900033 AND
900212.
Item #16F2
Page 161
".^,~,...~"..,.,.".".-_.,_.--,~._""-
November 29, 2005
TO AWARD BID 05-3811 TO BENNETT FIRE PRODUCTS
COMPANY, INC. FOR EMS PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $22~400.
Item #16F3
A 10-YEAR LEASE WITH U.S. MINERAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES (US/MMS) FOR OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
SAND REQUIRED FOR THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT
PROJECT NO. 905271.
Item #16F4 - Continued to the 12/13/05 BCC Meeting
A CONTRACT WITH THE CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA TO PROVIDE SHOREBIRD MONITORING AS
REQUIRED BY FDEP PERMIT FOR A COST OF $34,798
PROJECT NO. 905271.
Item #16F5 - Continued to the 12/13/05 BCC Meeting
THE PROPOSAL BY COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING
TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION PHASE ENGINEERING
SUPPORT AND SURVEYING FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED, TIME
AND MATERIAL PRICE OF $225,000 FOR THE CITY OF
NAPLES/ COUNTY BEACH RE-NOURISHMENT PROJECT NO.
90527.
Item #16F6
RESOLUTION 2005-411: REQUIRING FY07 LINE-ITEM
DETAIL BUDGETS FOR THE SHERIFF, CLERK AND
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED BY MAY 1,
Page 162
'-"~''''<''''~--"''''''''''<'''''''--_.''-'--''''''''''''
-'^."...-.......-...~"..~"-
November 29, 2005
2006.
Item #16F7
AMENDMENT A-1 TO CONTRACT 02-3411 MANAGEMENT
SERVICES FOR PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION WITH
SEVERN TRENT SERVICES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,000
ANNUALL Y.
Item #16F8
A DISASTER RELIEF FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL
AND STATE ASSISTANCE FOR HURRICANE KATRINA
(FEMA-1602-DR-FL).
Item #16F9
A DISASTER RELIEF FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL
AND STATE ASSISTANCE FOR HURRICANE RITA (FEMA-
3259-DR-FL).
Item #16F10
A DISASTER RELIEF FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL
AND STATE ASSISTANCE FOR HURRICANE WILMA (FEMA-
1609-DR-FL).
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER PAID IN
Page 163
-',"">"--'-'~"-"~'~'--". .. -. -~...,..-"""-
November 29, 2005
ADVANCE TO ATTEND THE IMMOKALEE ANNUAL FARM-
CITY BARBECUE ON NOVEMBER 23, 2005 AND IS
REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$18.00~ TO BE PAID FROM HIS TRAVEL BUDGET.
Item #16I1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE TO FILE FOR
RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED.
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 164
"_"__~__'"_'O'~-"'.~"""'_____~«·"·'--·'·""·-
_~-"'"_._ ._".m...."._..·__".___"_··,~_
I ftJ;,:: CJ-
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
November 29,2005
1. FOR BOARD ACTION:
A. No items for board action.
2. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida
Statutes, Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of
County Commissioners for the period:
(1) October 15, 2005 - October 21, 2005.
(2) October 22, 2005 - October 28, 2005.
B. Districts:
(1) Lely Community Development District: Minutes of April 20,
2005; Minutes of May 18, 2005; Minutes of June 15, 2005;
Minutes of July 20, 2005; Minutes of August 17, 2005; Minutes
of September 21,2005.
(2) South Florida Water Manaaement District: Notice of Meeting
Change.
C. Minutes:
(1) Environmental Advisory Council: Staff Report of November 2,
2005 (1-75/Alligator Alley PUD); Staff Report of November 2,
2005 (Living Word Family Church); November 2, 2005 (Briana
Breeze Subdivision); Agenda of November 2, 2005; Minutes of
October 5, 2005.
(2) Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of
November 8, 2005; Minutes of October 11 , 2005.
H:\DA T A \Melanie\2005 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE\November 29, 2005 Mise
Correspo.doc
/f.I:I:a-
(3) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisorv
Committee: Agenda of November 9,2005.
(4) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of
November 9, 2005; Minutes of October 12, 2005.
(5) Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes of
October 18, 2005; Agenda of November 3, 2005.
(a) Utilities Subcommittee: Minutes of August 17, 2005.
(6) Pelican Bay Services Division MSTBU: Agenda of October 26,
2005.
(a) Budaet Sub-Committee: Agenda of September 21,2005;
Minutes of September 21, 2005.
(7) Collier County Airport Authority: Minutes of October 10,2005;
Minutes of September 26, 2005.
(8) Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of
September 22, 2005.
(9) Caribbean Gardens Blue Ribbon Committee: Minutes of
September 12, 2005; Minutes of August 16, 2005.
(10) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board: Minutes of April
11 , 2005.
(11) Productivity Committee: Minutes of September 21 , 2005.
(a) Operational Efficiency and Effectiveness Study
Subcommittee: Minutes of September 14, 2005.
H:\DA T A \Melanie\2005 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE\November 29, 2005 Mise
Correspo.doc
November 29, 2005
Item #16J1
RATIFICATION AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN, AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ELECTION
SERVICES WITH THE CITY OF EVERGLADES,
AUTHORIZING THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO LEASE
TO THE CITY CERTAIN VOTING EQUIPMENT OWNED BY
COLLIER COUNTY, FOR USE IN THE CITY'S FOR ELECTION
HELD ON NOVEMBER 22~ 2005.
Item #16K1
PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $859.10 FOR PARCEL NOS. 142, 742A, 742B AND
942 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
PARKWAY COMMUNITY CHURCH OF GOD, ET AL., CASE
NO. 03-2374-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT 60027).
(FISCAL IMPACT $859.10)
Item # 16K2
PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $800
FOR PARCEL NOS. 141,841 AND 143 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. PRIMERA IGLESIA
CRISTIANA MANANTIAL DE VIDA, INC., ET AL., CASE NO.
03-2372-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT
60027).(FISCAL IMPACT $800)
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2005-66: AMENDING SCHEDULE TEN OF
APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
Page 165
~__" "....,.,,__.<_.~,~,,_______ _,'_. C" . '.
November 29, 2005
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, AS AMENDED, WHICH
IS THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMP ACT FEE
ORDINANCE, PROVIDING FOR THE INCORPORATION BY
REFERENCE OF THE AMENDED IMP ACT FEE STUDY
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT IMP ACT
FEE STUDY DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 AND REVISING
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT IMP ACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
TO REFLECT A CHANGE IN THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
RATE FROM AN APPLIED FORMULA TO A TIERED RATE
SCHEDULE.
Item #17B - Continued to the 12/13/05 BCC Meeting
AMENDING THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP (S.H.I.P.) DOWN PAYMENT AND CLOSING
COST ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR FIRST TIME
HOMEBUYERS.
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2005-412: PUDEX-2005-AR-8365 WCI
COMMUNITIES, INC., REPRESENTED BY RICHARD
YOV ANOVICH, ESQUIRE OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN &
JOHNSON, P.A., IS REQUESTING A 2- YEAR EXTENSION OF
THE LANDS END PRESERVE PUD IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LDC SECTION 10.02.13.D.5(A). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
CONSISTING OF 262.9, IS LOCATED IN SECTION 5,
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
Item # 1 7D - Moved to Item #8A
Page 166
~-._-~-~- .
November 29, 2005
Item # 1 7E
RESOLUTION 2005-413: PUDEX-2005-AR-8266; SECTION
THIRTY CORPORATION, LLC, REPRESENTED BY DWIGHT
NADEAU, OF RWA, INC., IS REQUESTING A 2-YEAR
EXTENSION TO THE LIVINGSTON LAKES PUD FROM
FEBRUARY 23, 2006 TO FEBRUARY 23, 2008. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 46.73 ACRES, IS LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, APPROXIMATELY
OF A MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, SECTION 30,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
Page 167
_~"_,,,-_""~'''-'"'''''W_
."...._--""._-,-_._~."~,._-~~._."'-~-_."'""þ.'""-.
November 29, 2005
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:32 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~w.~
FRED . COYLE, lrrnan
ATTEST;",,,~~, '0, ,
DWIGHT Þ·~,·ßROCK, CLERK
," '~ \:")' .'. <", . .
'iii:.
___c
. .
BY:~~t~'~~ ,[)r
.ignat.... 011-
These minutes approved by the Board on \ - to - ¿ðo0 ' as
presented V or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 168