BCC Minutes 12/13/2005 R
December 13, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, December 13, 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
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
-...--...--
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tì'
"',
',:
, """""'~ <
..~.. ..~
AGENDA
December 13, 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
THA T ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
Page 1
December 13, 2005
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
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. November 1,2005 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. November 7,2005 - BCC/Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board Workshop
D. November 18,2005 - BCC/Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate
Marianne Kantor
E. November 18,2005 - BCC/Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate
Mark Pelletier
F. November 18,2005 - BCC/Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate
Stephen Cunningham
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
5- Year Recipients:
Page 2
December 13, 2005
1. Heather Rockcastle - Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council
2. Dr. Erica Lynne - Environmental Advisory Council
10-Year Recipients:
1. Jack Humphrey -Industrial Development Authority
20 Year Attendees:
1. Danny Morris, Ochopee Fire Control District
2. Alamar Smiley, Building Review and Permitting
4. PROCLAMATIONS
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Advisory Committee Outstanding Member of the Year
2005 to Janet Vasey, County Government Productivity Committee.
B. Recommendation to recognize Karla Nicol, Fiscal Technician, Human
Services, as the "Employee of the Year" for 2005.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Alexandra Brennan to discuss vegetation removal
permit violation (Case #2005010137).
B. Public Petition request by Kathy Patterson to discuss the transfer of
Bembridge PUD to the Collier County Housing Development Corporation
for housing development.
C. Public Petition request by Donald Spanier to discuss the pending City of
Naples Pelican Bay Annexation Referendum.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1 :00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Page 3
December 13, 2005
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: V A-2005-AR-
8010 James and Margaret Fornear, represented by Clay Brooker, Esquire,
are requesting an after-the-fact from Section 4.02.03.A of the Land
Development Code (LDC) to allow for a 5.3-foot encroachment into the
required 10-foot rear yard (accessory) setback, as applicable to a screen
enclosure on a waterfront lot, leaving a 4.7-foot rear yard. The subject
property is located at 175 Bayview Avenue, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Est.
Subdivision, Unit 1, Block C, Lot 7, in Section 32, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. RZ-2005-AR-7276:
Southern Development Company, represented by Tim Hall, of Turrell &
Associates, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning
district to the Residential Single-Family [RSF-4(2.1)] zoning district to
allow a maximum of 15 single-family residential dwelling units to be
developed on the subject 7.29 acres for a project known as Briana Breeze,
which equates to a density of 2.1 dwelling units per acre. The property is
located at 255 Price Street, in Section 4, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
B. This item was continued from the November 29. 2005 BCC Meetin2.
Recommendation to approve an ordinance amending Chapters 2 and 42 of
the Code of Law and Ordinances pertaining to the appointment,
composition, functions, powers, and duties of the Affordable Housing
Commission and sunsetting the Citizens Advisory Task Force.
C. This item was continued from the November 29. 2005 BCC meetin2.
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.
D. This item was continued from the November 15. 2005 BCC meetin2 and
was further continued from the November 29. 2005 BCC Meetin2. 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
Page 4
December 13, 2005
_, "~'m'_'~_'<"_""~____~"_'N_,,__,«~_"",,""""W'_H'"__"
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. PUDZ-2005-AR-7299
Community School of Naples, Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP
ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. , and Richard D. Yovanovich, of
Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, requesting a rezone from the Agricultural
(A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)
zoning district to allow development of a maximum of 148 single-family,
two-family, duplex or multi-family dwelling units in a project to be known
as Manchester Square. The subject property, consisting of approximately
36.9 acres is located at 13275 Livingston Road, in Section 12, Township 49
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Collier County Citizens Corps.
B. Appointment of members to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
C. Appointment of members to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council.
E. Appointment of member to the Isle of Capri Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
F. Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
supporting the Lee County Commission efforts to find solutions to Lake
Okeechobee fresh water release issues.
Page 5
December 13, 2005
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation for the Board to consider receiving delegation of Boat
Dock Permitting from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (Joseph
K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and Environmental
Services)
B. Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase to acquire
a residential lot for expansion of the County's Bayview Park at a cost not to
exceed $287,875, Project 800601. (Marla Ramsey, Administrator, Public
Services)
C. Recommendation to approve Professional Service Agreement No. 05-3865
for engineering and permitting services to be provided by CH2MHill, Inc.,
for the six-laning of Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to Pine
Ridge Road, Project No. 68056, CIE 13, in the amount of$ 2,028,745.00.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
D. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommend Approval of Change
Order for additional expenses above $700,000 for both media and
production billed by Paradise Advertising at the gross amount to Contract
03-3537 between Paradise Advertising & Marketing, Inc. and Collier
County for Marketing and Advertising Collier County as a Tourism
Destination in the amount of $200,000.00 for final payments for fiscal year
2005. (Jack Wert, Director, Tourism)
E. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or
purchase of fee simple interests and/or those perpetual or temporary
easement interests necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and
utility improvements required for the expansion of Collier Boulevard (CR
951) from US 41 to Main Golden Gate Canal. (Capital Improvement
Element No. 86, Project No. 60001). Estimated fiscal impact: $5,437,500.00.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
F. Recommendation to have the Board of County Commissioners establish a
Freedom Memorial Park at the Main Government Complex in order to
recognize and honor America's freedoms along with historical and cultural
events. (Len Price, Administrator, Administrative Services)
Page 6
December 13, 2005
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Eckerds (Donovan Center PUD).
2. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Olde Cypress, Unit Three.
3. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities
for Summer Lakes aka Sawgrass Pines.
4. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of sewer utility facilities
for Sterling Oaks Recreation Center.
5. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Sterling Oaks, Phase 2B.
6. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities
for Sterling Oaks Recreation Center.
Page 7
December 13, 2005
-"--"-----^',_..-
7. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Eagle Cove at Sweetwater Bay II.
8. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Sterling Oaks, Phase 2A.
9. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of sewer utility facilities
for Grey Oaks, Unit 16.
10. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Eden at the Strand.
11. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Moorgate
Point, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
12. Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Mahogany Estates. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
13. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Tiburon Boulevard Extension.
14. Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfactions of Lien for
payments received for Code Enforcement actions.
15. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Bridgewater Bay, Unit One.
16. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Sterling Oaks, Phase 3A.
17. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Sterling Oaks, Phase 4 aka Sanctuary Pointe,
Phase 2, Deer Creek, Phase 2.
18. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities
for Twin Dolphins.
Page 8
December 13, 2005
'.~"'"-""""""""'_._--"-""¡,,,,,,",,""''''.''''''_.'~''''-~-~'."""",«'"""",",----.",,",,,,,,-,,--"-"."-.--..,,,",,---,,.,--,--.
19. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities
for Arielle at Pelican Marsh, Phase 3.
20. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Bent Grass Bend at Pelican Marsh.
21. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Heritage Greens, Phase I-A.
22. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Habitat Village.
23. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Glen Eden, Phase II.
24. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Glen Eden Lakes, Phase 1.
25. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Forest Park, Phase 1.
26. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Eden on the Bay.
27. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of sewer utility facilities
for Capistrano at Grey Oaks.
28. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Calumet Reserve at Lely Resort.
29. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize its Chairman to execute an Interlocal Agreement with
the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District, which will
supersede a prior Impact Fee Interlocal Agreement between the
parties in order to be consistent with the updated District Fire
Protection Impact Fees.
30. UDP-2004-AR-6872 Agnoli, Barber & Brundage representing
Benderson Development Company, Inc for review and approval of a
Unified Development Plan (UDP) submittal per Ordinance 92-43 for a
Page 9
December 13, 2005
,"~"--;,;,_.,--",.....,.....,~._""",,....._,,~.--,,""_'---""".;_"'_''>--,-,-,=-,...,,-,
shopping center. The property is located at the intersection of
Tamiami Trail North and Old U.S. 41, further described as Township
48, Range 25, Sections l5 and 16, Collier County, Florida, consisting
of21.1 Acres
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1. Recommendation to approve Johnson Engineering, Inc. Invoice #1 for
the time between June 28, 2005 until September 4, 2005 in the amount
of $165,305.21 under ITN 04-3583 CEI Services for Collier County
Road Projects for Project No. 60018 Immokalee Road Project from
Collier Blvd. to 43rd Ave. N.E.
2. Recommend that the Board Approve Change Order 5 to the contract
for Professional Engineering Services by RW A, Inc. in the amount of
$179,230 for the Golden Gate Parkway Six-laning Design from
Airport Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard, Project No. 60027.
3. Recommendation to approve Change Order No.2 to the construction
contract with AP AC-FLORIDA, Inc. for Intersection Improvements
of New Market Road at Charlotte Street in Immokalee, Florida in the
amount of $3l6,972.l O. Project No. 60016, Bid No. 05-3742.
4. Recommendation to approve Change Order No.4 to Contract No.
#05-3812 Goodlette-Frank Road (PRR-VBR) Landscape
Improvements Construction with Hannula Landscaping, Inc. (Project
No. 60l344) in the amount of$39,l48.24.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1. Recommendation to approve a Change Order to Work Order No. AB-
040-06-01 with Angie Brewer and Associates, L.C. in the amount of
$70,098.82 under Sarasota County Contract No. 2003-040 for State
Revolving Funds Loan Procurement Services from The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection for the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant 12 Million Gallons per Day Reverse
Osmosis Expansion; Project Number 700971 and the Rehabilitation of
Degasification Towers at South County Regional Water Treatment
Plant; Project Number 710221.
Page 10
December 13, 2005
,. ,,_.,,~..--,._-_._------"..~,.-
2. Ratify County Managers approval of Emergency Purchase Orders to
Heyward Inc., Mitchell and Stark Construction Co., and Hole Montes,
Inc. for the total of$3l2,700.00 for various equipment and services
related to the critical failure of the sodium hypochlorite (bleach) tanks
at the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF)
3. Recommendation to award construction contract to upgrade North
County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) sodium hypochlorite
system to Mitchell and Stark Inc., under fixed term contract 04-3535
for $693,154 and approve the necessary Budget Amendment for
Project 739661.
4. Recommendation to approve the South Florida Water Management
District Local Governmental Agreement No. OT060134 in the amount
of $987,679 as partial funding for construction of the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant 20-MGD Well field Expansion,
Project Number 708921.
5. Recommendation to approve the South Florida Water Management
District Local Governmental Agreement No. OT060135 in the amount
of $1,600,000 as partial funding for construction of the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant 12-MGD Reverse Osmosis
Expansion, Project Number 700971.
6. Recommendation to approve the South Florida Water Management
District Local Governmental Agreement No. OT060l33 in the amount
of $500,000.00 as partial funding for the North East Regional Water
Treatment Plant lOMGD Reverse Osmosis (RO) Construction, Project
Number 70902.
7. Recommendation to approve, execute and record a Satisfaction of a
Notice of Claim of Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee. Fiscal
impact is $10.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
8. Recommendation to approve the Satisfaction for a certain Water
and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreement. Fiscal impact is $18.50
to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
9. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
Page 11
December 13, 2005
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
10. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
11. Recommendation to approve award of bid 06-3911 in the Amount of
$771,342 to Kyle Construction, Inc., for the construction of Force
Main along Manatee Road Project 73160.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to reflect an
increase in the amount of $9,000 in the Older Americans Act program
and authorize the Chairman to sign a contract amendment between
Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Area Agency
on Aging.
2. Recommendation to approve budget amendments totaling $858,416 to
ensure continuous funding of the Older Americans Act grant for 2006.
3. Recommendation to approve South Florida Water Management
District Local Governmental Agreement No. OT060 123 in the amount
of $1 00,000 as partial funding for construction of the Irrigation
System at North Collier Regional Park.
4. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution repealing all previous
resolutions establishing and amending parts of the Collier County
Parks and Recreation Department Facilities and Outdoor Areas
License and Fee Policy and establishing the policy anew.
5. Recommendation to award Work Order #WMI-FT-3290-06-03 in the
amount of $340,080 to WilsonMiller, Inc. for design and permitting of
Orangetree Park.
Page 12
December 13, 2005
.·'''·'N'''_...."''''_''''"''',.,...,__þ__",.<_.._'"''"'_.__,~.~.".""'_".""_m.~..m'.."._".___.",
6. Recommendation to award Bid No. 06-3923 to Southeast Correct
Craft for purchase and delivery of a ski boat in the amount of $33,937
7. Recommendation to award Bid #06-3913 to Berrys Barbell and
Equipment, Inc and Life Fitness for purchase, delivery, and
maintenance of Fitness Equipment at an estimated FY 06 expenditure
of $320,000.
8. Recommendation to accept the Ford Fleet Test Bailment contract
which provides for the use of a vehicle to transport veterans to VA
medical appointments.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1. Recommendation to Confirm and Consent to the Re-assignment of
Contract Nos. 04-3597, "Davis Blvd. Phase II MSTD Roadway
Grounds Maintenance;" 05-3686 "Part I Golden Gate Beautification
MSTU/MSTD Roadway Grounds Maintenance and Part II - Radio
Beautification MSTU/MSTD Roadway Grounds Maintenance;" and
053874 "Golden Gate Annual Landscape Maintenance" from
Advanced Lawn and Landscaping Service, Inc. to FRK Enterprises,
Inc. dba Advanced Lawn and Landscaping Service.
2. Recommendation to approve purchase of vehicles, equipment, and
tires from Bid #04-l2-0823 Rollover, Bid #05-13-0822, Bid #05-06-
0823 and Bid #05/6-02-0105 as coordinated by the Florida Sheriffs
Association, the Florida Association of Counties, and the Florida Fire
Chiefs Association, when in the best interests of the County.
3. Recommendation to approve Amendment #3 to Contract 04-3576,
Construction Manager at Risk for the Courthouse Annex and Parking
Garage, with Kraft Construction Company, Inc. resulting in a
reduction of $12,500 to the Guaranteed Maximum Price.
4. Recommendation to authorize rejection of Bid No. 05-3877
Locksmith Services.
5. Recommendation to award RFP No. 05-3869 Elevator Maintenance to
KONE Elevators and Escalators for elevator maintenance and repair.
Page 13
December 13, 2005
H"".·""".~.,,, ,........~ .. 1" 'If'
_"",~_,_.." ...... ... --~~-,,,._._."-"'-~,_.
-'-"-'._..__.._..-..~"-
6. Recommendation to approve the purchase of Group Insurance
coverage and services for calendar year 2006.
7. Report and ratify Property, Casualty, Workers Compensation and
Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the Risk Management
Director pursuant to Resolution # 2004-l5 for the fourth quarter of FY
05.
8. Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1. Recommendation to approve a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity for NCH Healthcare System for non-emergency ambulance
service and approve a Budget Amendment recognizing and
appropriating the $250 annual renewal fee.
2. Recommendation to accept a $l, 186 American Heart Association
donation to Emergency Medical Services and approve a Budget
Amendment to recognize and appropriate the funds.
3. Recommendation to approve a sole-source contract with eCivis for a
multi-year subscription to eCivis Grants Locator in the amount of
$101,317.
4. Recommendation to approve Modification #2 to Grant Agreement
#05DS-2N-09-2l-022 between Collier County and the Florida
Department of Community Affairs.
5. Recommendation to approve a Resolution approving and adopting the
National Response Plan, and approving and mandating that Collier
County shall use the National Incident Management System for all
incident management in Collier County.
6. This item continued from the November 29. 2005 BCC Meetin2.
Recommend the waiver of formal competition and acceptance of a
proposal from The Conservancy of Southwest Florida to provide
shorebird monitoring as required by the FDEP permit for contract 05-
3854, Collier County Beach Renourishment, Project No. 905271, for a
Page 14
December 13, 2005
,--".-",
'"__·_.__.u._,_,..-- __. "~"'.~..___,,,~__...._.,_"",,,__,,_ ,.....«"._
cost of $34,798.
7. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment segregating funds
collected for Beach Access/Beach Park Facilities from funds collected
for Beach RenourishmentlPass Maintenance Activities.
8. This item continued from the November 29. 2005 BCC Meetin2.
Recommend approval of Work Order Number CPE- FT -06-06 under
contract 01-3271 with 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. 90527l (Contract
No. 05-3854) and to waive the $90,000.00 Work Order limit.
9. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners declare a
valid public purpose and authorize payment for specific invoices in
support of Hurricane Wilma Recovery efforts in Collier County.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1. Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the 2005
Farm City BBQ at University Extension Office; $18.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2. Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending EDC's
Pre-Legislative Luncheon on December 14,2005 at The Strand
Country Club; $50.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
3. Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement to
attend a function serving a valid public purpose. To attend Southwest
Regional Delegation Forum - Issues '06 on December 16, 2005 at
Florida Gulf Coast University; $40.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
Page 15
December 13, 2005
.' '_'w"___,,...,·,_
4. Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
to attend a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
Henning to attend the SW Regional Delegation Forum "Issues '06" on
December 16, 2005 at the Florida Gulf Coast University. $40.00 to be
paid from Commissioner Henning's travel budget.
5. Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose to attend the
Economic Development Council of Collier County's Pre-Legislative
Luncheon on December 14, 2005 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. Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the use
of Confiscated Trust Funds for Drug Abuse Education and Prevention.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1. Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel Nos. l22, 822 and 922 in the
lawsuit styled Collier County v. John J. Yaklich, et aI., Case No. 03-
2559-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project 60027). (Fiscal Impact
$18,652.00)
2. Recommendation that the County Assume the defense of Frederick
Gonzalez in Department of Health v. Frederick Gonzalez, Bureau of
Emergency Medical Services, State of Florida, Case No. 2002-0720
arising out of and during the course of his employment with Collier
County pursuant to Collier County Resolution No. 95-632.
3. Request by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority for
approval of a Resolution authorizing the Authority to make a loan to
Naples Community Hospital pursuant to a Master Financing
Agreement approved by the Authority and the Board in 1997 for the
purpose of financing the purchase by the hospital of certain medical
Page 16
December 13, 2005
~,.....-,.",.~"._--......_----"._--.,-«.._.,._,--
and other equipment used by the hospital in its health care operations.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPRO V AL 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 to amend Ordinance No. 93-56, as amended, and codified
in the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, as Chapter
14, Article II, which regulates and controls animals within the area of Collier
County, specifically amending Section 14-34, pertaining to license
certification and rabies vaccinations for dogs, cats, and ferrets, increasing
license costs, and providing an effective date.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Teryl H. Brzeski,
represented by J. Gary Butler, of Butler Engineering, Inc., is requesting a 2-
year extension of the Pine Ridge Corners PUD. The subject property,
consisting of 4.22 acres, is located north of Pine Ridge Road, 1/6 mile east
ofWhipporwill Lane, in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
C. Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners adopting Collier Countys South County Regional
Water Treatment Plant 12 Million Gallons per Day Reverse Osmosis
Expansion Facilities Plan, dated October 2005; allow this Plan to be
submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; and
authorize County Staff to carryout responsibilities under the FDEP Low
Interest Loan Program.
Page 17
December 13, 2005
<"'..,..,...._."..--,-;'''''.......~--"----_._..-,,.._,-'"-_.._~
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 18
December 13, 2005
December 13, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, do we have a hot
mike?
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commissioner meeting is now in order.
Will you please stand for the invocation by County Manager Jim
Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Let us pray. Oh, heavenly Father, we ask your
blessings on these proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask
a special blessing on this Board of County Commissioners, guide them
in their deliberations, grant them the wisdom and vision to meet the
trials of this day and the days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight. Your will be done, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please remain standing for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we sing a song now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At our Kiwanis club we sing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You may sing. Would you like to sing
us a song?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before we begin, County Manager, I
would like to recognize the efforts of three of our county
commissioners, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Halas, who went to Jacksonville yesterday to represent
us before the Impact Fee Committee Task Force, and apparently
achieved a lot of good yesterday, at least made known our opposition
to their earlier stated efforts to put a cap on impact fees and transfer
Page 2
"--,,-,..,..
.,.,. ," -..~-......,._..._~,-..",.,-------"_._,,".,..,..~_.,------~,--~-
December 13, 2005
the cost to the residents.
So I would like to express my appreciation to all of you for
making this effort. I think it was very productive. And as you have
already pointed out, it -- particularly Commissioner Halas, it is an
ongoing effort, and it's not going to disappear.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. We just have to make sure
that we do due diligence. And I think that it behooves us to make sure
that we're there at the 11 th hour of the legislative session. As you
know, that's what took place last year with this growth management
bill, and we sure want to make sure that we're ahead of the game this
year.
So as the legislature wraps up their session this upcoming 2006,
we want to make sure that we're there and that the interests of not only
Collier County citizens but all citizens of Florida are well represented.
Because I can tell you that the development industry is not going to
take this lightly. And I'm very concerned that the cap may come back
and reappear as something else when the legislature gets in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. I'm certain of that.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And a thank you to
Commissioner Henning for giving up his seat so that we could have a
reporter go up there with us and be a part of this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner -- I mean, Mr.
Mudd, you're going to talk to us about the agenda today?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir,
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Page 3
^·h'",__""....._..._._...._~..,,"
December 13, 2005
MR. MUDD: Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, December 13,2005.
First item is to add item 2G. It's September 28, 2005, BCC/Lee
County joint workshop with 1-75 Expressway Authority, and that
agenda and minutes is added at staffs request.
Next item is to withdraw 6C. It was a public petition request by
Donald Spanier to discuss the pending City of Naples Pelican Bay
annexation referendum. That withdrawal was at the petitioner's
request.
The next item is item 7 A. The item should include, this item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members, and that's at staff request.
Next item is 16A30. Item AS of the general notes on the UDP
plan needs to be eliminated. The note to be eliminated reads, the
change will result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention
or will otherwise increase stormwater discharges and/or, and that's at
staffs request.
Next item is item 16B 1. The title should read, recommendation
to approve Johnson Engineering, Inc., invoice number 1 for the time
between June 28, 2005, through October 11, 2005, rather than the
September 4, 2005 date that's on the item, and that's at staffs request.
Item 16B4, the title on the index should read, recommendation to
approve change order number 5 rather than number 4, and that's at
staffs request.
Next item is to move item 16D6 to lOG, and that's a
recommendation to award bid number 06-3923 to the Southeast
Correct Craft for purchase and delivery of a sky boat in the amount of
$33,937. That item was moved at Commissioner Coyle's request.
Next item is to withdraw item 16H1, and that's, Commissioner
Fiala requests board approval for reimbursement for attending a
function serving a valid public purpose, and that item is withdrawn at
Commissioner Fiala's request.
Page 4
-_.~----,.__._-
December 13, 2005
Next item is to move item 17C to 8F, and that's a
recommendation to approve a resolution of the Collier County Board
of County Commissioners adopting Collier County South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant, 12 million gallons per day reverse
osmosis expansion facilities plan, dated October 2005; and allow this
plan to be submitted to the Florida Development -- Department of
Environmental Protection; and authorize county staff to carry out
responsibilities under the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection low interest loan program, and that item is moved at staffs
request.
There's a time certain item today, and that's item 10D, to be heard
at 10 a.m. And 10D is a recommendation to approve of a change
order for additional expenses above $700,000 for both media and
production billed by Paradise Advertising at the gross amount to
contract 03-3537 between Paradise Advertising and Marketing Inc.,
and Collier County for marking and advertising Collier County as a
tourism destination in the amount of $200,000 for final payments for
fiscal year 2005.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Good morning and thank you. One item, and
that is under county attorney consent agenda, 16K3, a modification. I
provided you the material yesterday and have resubmitted it for your
reading, if you wish, right at your desk, at your dais.
And 16K3 is a resolution that the board approves relating to the
industrial development authority, and in this case a project relating to
Naples Community Hospital. Mr. Don Pickworth, on behalf of the
authority, has provided me information indicating that some of the
underlying facts relating to the transaction of the financing had
changed and, therefore needed to be altered in the resolution, and he's
provided a revised resolution to effectuate that change.
Page 5
--~,.-
December 13,2005
If I could, I'll read a brief statement into the record, and that is,
subsequent to this submission of the agenda materials, the structure of
the transaction has changed, although these changes are not material
with respect to the approval of the transaction by the IDA or the
county, and the only effect of the changes to the IDA or county is one
of nomenclature in the approving resolutions.
Weare submitting a revised resolution that reflects these
changes, and request that if the board approves this transaction by the
IDA that the revised resolution be the one that is executed.
And I would indicate that in terms of review and legal
sufficiency, that that is correct. I have provided as well to the court
reporter the revised resolution, and as is always the case, the Board of
County Commissioners in no way, or the county, is in no way
indebted or obligated relating to these transactions of the Industrial
Development Authority.
So with that, I'd ask that the board recognize these changes into
the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you need a vote on that?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, when you--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When we approve the agenda.
MR. WEIGEL: When you approve the consent agenda, if you
would note that as part of the reso. --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. WEIGEL: -- or motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And nother further, right?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have any speakers on the
summary agenda or --
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- or any other?
Commissioner Halas, do you have any ex parte disclosures for
the summary agenda?
Page 6
__'__'."_"_0"__"'_.____"_
December 13,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have any changes either to
the agenda, nor do I have any ex parte on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no -- nothing to declare
on the summary agenda, but I would like to pull 16F 1 , Naples
Community Hospital non-emergency ambulance agreement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that's --
MR. MUDD: 10H, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's going to become 10H, okay.
And I have some disclosure on item 17B. Of course it relates to
the original approval of this PUD going back to 2002, but more
recently, I did receive a fax from the petitioner's agent concerning this
request for an extension of the PUD, and that fax is in my file for
reVIew.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no disclosures on the
summary agenda, and no changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte
communication or no disclosures on the summary agenda. I would
like to move 16F, as in Frank, 9, to the regular agenda.
MR. MUDD: It would be 101, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was 16F?
MR. MUDD: Nine--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: To?
MR. MUDD: 101.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, but it was 16F--
MR. MUDD: 16F9 to 101.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 16F9 to 101 Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With those changes, Mr. Chair,
County Manager's comments included, and the county attorney's
comments and changes to the resolution on the item on the consent
Page 7
--.-....
_>__h.."~~~>=_",,,......".. .._.,.._.."_._"_...",,,.~_"__,
.' - ..-----_._-~. '-'... '-"...---.,-"...--
December 13, 2005
agenda, I make a motion that we approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion for approval by
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 8
----.'"-.,
----'''---'--,.<..,_.""..._,..,,".,.,'''''----~._.,.,...
._"-'^~-'''"-."'-,~._..,._.'"--_...._.._,.."~--
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
December 13. 2005
Add Item 2G: September 2S, 2005 - BCC/Lee County Joint Workshop with 1-75 Expressway
Authority. (Staffs request.)
Withdraw Item 6C: Public Petition request by Donald Spanier to discuss the pending City of
Naples Pelican Bay Annexation Referendum. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 7 A: The title should include: "This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members." (Staff's request.)
Item 16A30: Item A5 of the General Notes on the UDP plan needs to be eliminated. The note to
be eliminated reads, "The change will result in a requirement for increased stonnwater retention,
or will otherwise increase stonnwater discharges; or". (Staffs request.)
Item 16B1: Title should read: "Recommendation to approve Johnson Engineering, Inc., Invoice
#1 for the time between June 2S, 2005 through October 11, 2005 . . ." (rather than September 4,
2005). (Staffs request.)
Item 16B4: Title on index should read: "Recommendation to approve Change Order No.5. . . ."
(rather than No.4). (Staffs request.)
Move Item 16D6 to 10G: Recommendation to award Bid No. 06-3923 to Southeast Correct Craft
for purchase and delivery of a ski boat in the amount of $33,937. (Commissioner Coyle's
request.)
Withdraw Item 16H1: Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the 2005 Farm City BBQ at
University Extension Office; $1S.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
(Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Move Item 17C to SF: Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners adopting Collier County's South County Regional Water Treatment Plant
12 Million Gallons per Day Reverse Osmosis Expansion Facilities Plan, dated October 2005; allow
this Plan to be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; and authorize
County staff to carry out responsibilities under the FDEP Low Interest Loan Program. (Staffs
request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 10D to be heard at 10:00 a.m.: Recommend approval of Change Order for additional
expenses above $700,000 for both media and production billed by Paradise Advertising at the
gross amount to Contract 03-3537 between Paradise Advertising & Marketing, Inc., and Collier
County for Marketing and Advertising Collier County as a Tourism Destination in the amount of
$200,000 for final payments for fiscal year 2005.
^---~--",...,..
"'·.u ... '-'A__~_~~'"
December 13, 2005
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F & #2G
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1,2005 BCC REGULAR MEETING;
NOVEMBER 7,2005 BCC HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY
BOARD WORKSHOP; NOVEMBER 18, 2005 BCC/V AB SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE MARIANNE KANTOR; NOVEMBER 18, 2005
BCC/V AB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MARK PELLETIER;
NOVEMBER 18,2005 BCC/VAB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
STEPHEN CUNNINGHAM; SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 BCC/LEE
COUNTY JOINT WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Now we have a number of agendas and minutes. November the
1st, 2005, BCC regular meeting; November 7,2005, BCC/Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Board workshop; November 18,2005, BCC/value
adjustment board, Special Magistrate Marianne Kantor; November 18,
2005 BCC/value adjustment board, Special Magistrate Mark Pelletier;
November 18, 2005, BCC/value adjustment board, Special Magistrate
Stephen Cunningham.
Is there a motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas, seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
MS. FILSON: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Did you get the add-on one, the 2G? That's also
on the list.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. I failed to read that one.
Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coletta, would you consider
also adding to your motion September the 28th, 2005, BCC/Lee
Page 9
___"n_
-,"" ""'~"'/><_-""__..."._,,-~..,".~
December 13,2005
County joint workshop with 1-75 Expressway Authority?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve with that
correction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second agrees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #3
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS)
And with that we're going to go to service awards, and we will
have the advisory committee service awards first, and we're all going
to go down front to make these awards, and the county manager will
read the names and the awards, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are we ready?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The first recipient -- this is paragraph 3,
service awards.
The first area is A, advisory committee service awards, and we'll
do the five-year recipients first, then go to the 10-year.
The first five-year recipient is Heather Rockcastle, and she has
Page 10
----...
-_.-....._~~._,.,---....-._«~"..,~.,.,"-.~"'- ',-.
December 13, 2005
spent five years on the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council.
Ms. Rockcastle?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She's not here today. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Don't believe so.
Now, the next five-year recipient is Dr. Erica Lynne, and she has
worked for five years on your Environmental Advisory Council.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulation for five years of service.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for your
servIce.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for volunteering. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now you get to take a picture. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for all your work.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next area, we go to the la-year recipients, and
we have one lO-year recipient, and that's Jack Humphrey, and he has
spent 1 a years working on the Industrial Development Authority for
the board. Mr. Humphrey?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jack isn't here, okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, that brings us to the 20-year
awardees for county employees, and the first 2a-year awardee is
Alamar Smiley from building review and pennitting.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Appreciate your
service. Thank you.
Page 11
,-----,
December 13,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Want to hold up that plaque?
MS. SMILEY: Yeah, definitely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hold that check higher.
MS. SMILEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Congratulations. The next 20
will be a lot easier.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 20-year awardee is Danny Morris, and he
works at the Ochopee Fire Control District.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hi, Dan. Thank you very much for 20
years of service. Why don't you stand right here and we'll take a
picture and let you hold that, and that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Dan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, do you want to do your
presentations? You have two presentations. Do you want to do them
down here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
Item #5A
JANET VASEY, COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE, AS THE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE OUTSTANDING MEMBER OF THE YEAR 2005-
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Okay. The first presentation is 5A, and it's a
presentation of the advisory committee outstanding member of the
Page 12
<__,eo,
December 13, 2005
year 2005, to Ms. Janet Vasey for her work on the County
Government Productivity Committee.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you'd like -- and I can read a
little bit for the viewing public. Janet Vasey has served as a member
of the County Government Productivity Committee for about six
years. In addition to her most recent appointment on February 4,
2004, she received previous appointments on January 12, 1999, March
14, 2000, and February 4, 2002.
During the course of her service to the Board of County
Commissioners as a member of the productivity committee, Ms.
Vasey's most recently, in November of this year, provided a thorough
and comprehensive review of the Economic Development Council,
EDC/ Anderson Fiscal Stability Analysis, as requested of the
productivity committee by the Board of County Commissioners.
This year she has also prepared, on behalf of the productivity
committee, a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
regarding the Golden Gate Parkway Overpass, as well as a request that
the board address the Collier County school board's failure to update
school impact fees since 1992.
Ms. Vasey has assumed the role of lead analyst on most impact
fee reviews. As lead analyst on a review of the first law enforcement
impact fee study in 2004, Ms. Vasey identified critical challenges to
the methodology applied. Upon review in 2003 of the first government
building impact fee study, she agreed with the methodology used.
Ms. Vasey has assumed responsibility of lead analyst on a review
of a transportation impact fee study in 2002, and identified serious
challenges to that methodology. In 2002 she made a recommendation
to the board about a reorganization of the county manager's agency.
As vice chainnan of the productivity committee in 2002, she also
led all committee members in a major budget review for fiscal 2003.
That review resulted in recommendations of millions of dollars in
Page 13
._-~,._~,._--_. ...."..,.,---,,'_.~.,'--'.-
-'~'~---,....,,-_.. --"-..-.--.'---._.«"~'~_._--
December 13,2005
budget reductions.
In 2001 Ms. Vasey wrote sections of the Airport Authority
review. In 2000, she consolidated the committee's major findings on
transportation shortfalls and recommended courses of action. In 1999,
she led a review of the general fund and the unincorporated general
fund.
Productivity Committee Chairman Joe Swaja wrote, Janet has
been an asset to the productivity committee. Her knowledge of
government processes as compared to private industry practice
provides the team with the expertise we need to understand the
differences.
Her analytical ability is matched by no one. She is always willing
to get involved and can be counted on to deliver as promised. I enjoy
working with her and appreciate her candor, knowledge, experience,
and sense of humor. We are all very thankful she is part of our team.
Productivity committee member Al Kozel wrote, J anet Vasey has
made outstanding contributions to the productivity committee on an
ongoing basis for several years. She has in-depth knowledge of most
county fiscal operations and devotes countless hours in preparation of
the committee's positions.
Ms. Vasey's nomination as Advisory Committee Outstanding
Member of the Month was supported unanimously by the productivity
committee on November 17,2004, and now she is the Committee
Member of the Year for 2005, and I'm so glad to see her and I'm so
glad she's looking so well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here's your parking pass.
MS. VASEY: Hallelujah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is this for the entire year?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MS. FILSON: No. No, sir, because we only have one spot, but I
told her she could keep it until we got the next Outstanding Member
of the Month.
Page 14
December 13,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: She can have Commissioner
Coletta's spot.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you so much for your
dedicated service. Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When I grow up I want to be
just like you.
MS. VASEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for everything.
MS. VASEY: My pleasure.
MS. FILSON: Congratulations.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Janet, as always.
MS. VASEY: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
KARLA NICOL, FISCAL TECHNICIAN, HUMAN SERVICES, AS
THE "EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR" FOR 2005 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next presentation is 5B, and
that's a recommendation to recognize Karla Nicol as the fiscal
technician, human services, as the Employee of the Year for 2005.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Karla Nicol was a relatively new employee when
she recognized the importance of community service. She took
responsibility in working with other human service employees to
oversee the creation of the "Get Help" clinic associated with the
annual point in time survey. The survey counts the number of
homeless men, women, and children in Collier County in order to
secure state and federal housing for these individuals.
Ms. Nicol selflessly sought donations from county employees,
Page 15
December 13,2005
area business, and other county departments to ensure the clinic made
needed resources available for individuals considered homeless. She
staffed the table with her daughter that provided assistance to
homeless children at St. Matthew's House.
Ms. Nicol was able to personally assist individuals within the
clinic described above ushering them to their variety of services that
were made available to them. She assisted individuals in getting eye
exams, testing for tuberculosis and hepatitis, and also needed dental
work.
She exceeded expectations of the human services department in
assisting those individuals less fortunate and in protecting the health,
safety, and welfare of the county.
Karla displays a can-do attitude in every task she is faced with.
She offers positive solutions for day-to-day activities and is pleasant
and appreciated by her colleagues.
She recently designed a new reporting method for social services
programming that was easy to read and provided the accountability
necessary for her position. She also adopted a payment mechanism
that is tied to the Florida Medicare system. It is anticipated that
savings will amount to approximately $600,000 for taxpayers this
fiscal year because of her efforts.
The human service department helps sponsor an annual "Get
Help" clinic for Collier County's homeless population. This year's
event was held on January 26, 2005, at St. Matthew's House. Karla
was instrumental in soliciting and coordinating donations, as I said
before, services and volunteers for the event.
This year was the best ever, as nearly 135 men, women, and
children who had become homeless were assisted through this effort.
Services included dental screening, medical and vision screening,
clothing, blankets, showers, haircuts, and a meal. Karla worked
diligently on this project. Her creativity and desire to help those less
fortunate made this event a success, not only for the human services
Page 16
December 13, 2005
department, but for the entire county as well.
There's an urgent message coming in.
Ms. Nicol has displayed an enormous ability to accomplish a
great deal in a short time and has become a vital important
contributing member to the human services department team.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to offer Ms. Karla Nicol as the
Employee of the Year for 2005.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're my idea of a hero.
Thank you very much.
MS. NICOL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what do you do in your spare
time?
MS. NICOL: Take care of kids, a house, same things you guys
do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's a pleasure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, appreciate it.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY ALEXANDRA BRENNAN TO
DISCUSS VEGETATION REMOVAL PERMIT VIOLATION -
DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, that brings us to paragraph 6,
public petitions, and the first item is 6A. It's a public petition request
by Alexandra Brennan to discuss vegetative removal permit violation,
case number 2005010137.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, come on up.
MS. BRENNAN: Good morning, hi.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can pick that microphone over
Page 17
December 13,2005
there. I'm sorry . You'll have to get behind the -- behind it. We need
to get you on record. That's the reason.
MS. BRENNAN: Good morning--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MS. BRENNAN: -- everybody. I'm a little nervous. I haven't
done this before, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's all right. We're nervous, too.
MS. BRENNAN: Okay. Do I just speak?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. Just go ahead. Tell us what you
want.
MS. BRENNAN: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just tell us what you want.
MR. MUDD: State your name and tell them what you want.
MS. BRENNAN: Okay. My name's Alexandra Brennan. I'm a
property owner out in North Belle Meade. There is one homeowner
that's been repeatedly making roads out there, so I called code
enforcement and said, somebody's been trespassing on our property.
They served me with a code violation for vegetation removal
violation. I've basically questioned that. I said, I didn't do it so -- but
they are not doing anything against it. I do not believe that I should
pay for it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And then I understand from the
petition that you submitted in writing that other neighbors are affected
by this same --
MS. BRENNAN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- same person who is building roads or
bringing roads through the property that does not belong to them; is
that correct?
MS. BRENNAN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay. Questions by--
Commissioner Coletta held his hand up first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, I, for one, would
Page 18
-_..~......._.",..., . ,. ~."~-
December 13, 2005
like to look into this farther, and I'd like to see it brought back to the
regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I really think that this is something
that needs to be addressed in the courts of law. Obviously this
gentleman's trespassing, and that's not in our realm as a county
commissioner (sic), but I feel that trespassing -- and obviously you
were cited with vegetation removal, and I really believe that that needs
to be taken to a court of law and that some type of restitution, not only
for your concerns as far as the code enforcement violation, but also the
fact that this person has been doing this to other people, that they all
need to get -- address this issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, we have a way
to permit everything or having to get a permit for everything, so this
gentleman, I'm sure, had to obtain a permit for connecting to the
roadway. And, you know, maybe that would be something we can
look at of relieving these folks of the burden of the allegations of this
illegal clearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jeff?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I do want to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You'd like to see it come back for -- Jeff,
you want to have -- make a clarifying comment here for us?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Commissioner, one approach to take
would be -- and I spoke to Michelle Arnold on this. She couldn't be
here, unfortunately, today -- would be to take this before the Code
Enforcement Board.
We've got mechanisms there where we could try to get
everybody together, sit down and see if we could hash it out so we get
an amicable resolution. If for some reason we can't get an amicable
resolution, we have the Code Enforcement Board who could then hear
the facts and, you know, give their decision.
Page 19
~ ...>-,,~_._..._.._'"- -........-...-
."---""~-""-"----'^
December 13,2005
And should the property owners disagree with that, there's then a
mechanism after that that they can go see a judge. So we have an
entire process that we can go through in that point, starting with
simply getting everybody together to see if we can't just handle this as
people. And that may be one approach you might want to consider.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now in the meantime, what
happens with the fines associated with this?
MR. KLATZKOW: We will not be prosecuting any fines at this
point in time, not until we get the parties together and get before the
Code Enforcement Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, how does that
sound to you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's the way to go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but we always leave the
option later to be able to look at it one more time. But I -- just as long
we're moving towards a course that we can get it corrected. If we can
try to avoid this petitioner from having to expend the money from
attorneys and going through the long legal process, I think that's the
answer. Maybe the hammer of code enforcement on the people that
did the illegal clearing might be the way to be able to go.
MR. KLATZKOW: If what I read was true in the petition,
Commissioner, I think that's exactly what's going to happen, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that acceptable to the
commissioners? And we send this to the Code Enforcement Board,
who will then gather the facts. And if the facts so indicate, the person
who is responsible for doing the clearing will be dealt with at that
point in time, and no fines will be assessed against the current
property owners. Is that essentially where -- what --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- would happen if these facts are, in
fact, true?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
Page 20
December 13, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then there -- Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Do we know who's been
doing this illegal clearing?
MS. BRENNAN: Yes. I have pictures, and I had given them to
the code enforcement at the time. And also while it was happening, I
called. I said they're out there right now doing it. But by the time she
got there, it was too late. They were already gone. But I have pictures
of the equipment on the land of the other property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, is there a motion
to send this to the Code Enforcement Board and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to send this to the Code --
yeah --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and any fines --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second your blah-blah-blah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we have a motion by Commissioner
Halas to send it to the Code Enforcement Board and to suspend any
enforcement of fines, and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please -- Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one little note.
MS. BRENNAN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you could, please, keep me
apprised of what's happening out there, would you?
MS. BRENNAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would be most appreciative--
MS. BRENNAN: Definitely. Thank you. I appreciate your
help.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- so that nothing falls between
the cracks.
MS. BRENNAN: I appreciate your help.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
Page 21
...----
December 13, 2005
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. Hopefully we'll
get this worked out for you.
MS. BRENNAN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY KATHY PATTERSON TO
DISCUSS THE TRANSFER OF BEMBRIDGE PUD TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT - DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 6B. That's a public petition request by Kathy Patterson to
discuss the transfer of Bembridge PUD to the Collier County Housing
Development Corporation for housing development.
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Kathy
Patterson. I'm the Executive Director of the Collier County Housing
Development Corporation. I'm here today to ask the Board of County
Commissioners to consider deeding the Bembridge property PUD to
the Collier County Housing Development Corporation.
If that would be the case, we would develop this land into
housing for people up to 150 percent of median.
We would put the land in a land trust and -- so that we can make
Page 22
December 13, 2005
sure that this property always remains affordable. And our intention is
to partner with a for-profit developer. And today I brought with me
Jim Fields, my partner in Cyrus Point. Preliminarily, our thoughts are
to build homes somewhere between 150 to 350, and Jim will give you
an overview of what our thoughts are. I'll answer any questions you've
got. Otherwise, I thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioners? You're the
only one who can speak, I believe, in a public petition.
MS. PATTERSON: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifwe have any questions, we can ask
your partner there.
MS. PATTERSON: You can ask him, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A question. What percentage of
medium income were you talking about serving?
MS. PATTERSON: We would do up to 150 percent, so we
would include affordable, workforce, gap, whatever you call it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And do you have some idea of
the percentage of the mix? Are you going to go with the market out
there for what it is? In other words, if the biggest demand is in the 80
to 100, would you fill that demand with the majority of it?
MS. PATTERSON: We are tentatively thinking of more units
below 100 percent, so what I think ideally we would like to do is like
a two-thirds, one-third, because the demand is more for the below 100,
if that's what you're asking me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm very interested in
what you're talking about, and I would -- I, for one, would like to see
it come back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. By having this in the land
trust, that means then that no investors can buy them; is that correct?
MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely.
Page 23
0>----'-"
December 13,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I just love that.
And secondly, I'm delighted to see you're working with Jim
Fields. He's doing a good job as far as the Cyrus Point goes, so he's
got the right idea to start filling this much-needed type of housing.
I wanted to ask one more question. This will be all for sale
product, right, to homesteaded, primary residence people, right?
MS. PATTERSON: Yes. First-time homebuyers. Exactly what
-- the land trust we talked about on Friday.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great, great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd like to bring this back on a
future agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there a possibility that the
land trust would consider purchasing the property?
MS. PATTERSON: Certainly. That could be an option,
certainly. It would have to be sometime in the future. The HDC
doesn't have the kind of money to purchase that.
Just the thought is that Lee County gave a million dollars to
purchase land to the Bonita Springs HDC, and it was a loan. And I
just thought maybe it would be a feather in our cap for the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners to just donate the land to
the HDC. Just a comment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's no such thing as a
donation.
MS. PATTERSON: Well--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's going to have to come out of
somebody's pocket. That is -- that land was paid for by emergency
management funds, so they have to be reimbursed by some fund or
someone, so --
MS . PATTERSON: Well, like I said, if there could be some
arrangement that we could pay sometime in the future, you know, we
Page 24
December 13, 2005
could certainly look at that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And in the meantime you'll set
up a trust fund when it comes back?
MS. PATTERSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I like the way the discussion's
going. Henning brought -- Commissioner Henning brought up a very
good point.
One of the things that I just want to make you very well aware of.
I'm pretty sure you know what's going to happen when this comes
back to the commission. We'll probably have this room filled and a
couple of the auxiliary rooms filled.
MS. PATTERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is going to be a real test of
the will of the -- of your organization and of this commission to see if
we can pull this together.
MS. PATTERSON: I'm up for the challenge.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I don't believe it's going to be
a test at all. When we were talking about it last time, all of the
residents in the area said they would be happy to see that; they were
coming to the podium.
But that's neither here nor there. We have a lot of money that we
have allocated through our different commission meetings from the
different developers who are donating a thousand dollars each. But, of
course, that's way in the future that you get the money. Maybe there's
some type of arrangement that we can discuss at the commission
meeting when we meet again as to how we can use that to finance this
as money comes in. I'm just throwing that on the table. I have no idea
how that will work out, but for our commission meeting when we
discuss this, okay?
Page 25
~--
December 13, 2005
MS. PATTERSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And we'll vote on this in just a
second. I'm certain there's enough votes to bring this back. But my
expectation and hope was that we could use property owned by
Collier County government specifically for gap housing for Collier
County government employees, and I'm not sure that you can do that.
But that's something we can discuss when it comes back, because
clearly there's enough votes here to bring it back for discussion.
So all in favor of bringing it back for discussion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it passes unanimously, so we'll
bring it back.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd like to bring that back the
second meeting of January, if that's okay.
MS. PATTERSON: All right.
MR. MUDD: And that gives everybody some time, and we
won't have to work through the Christmas thing in order to set up the
trust and everything else, and we can get all our details down for that
board meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good, good. Thank you.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, is there a motion maker and a
second on that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
Page 26
.__,_""'''''''''__''' '_'_'__"'_'_'__~'_"'___"__"__'_"'m_"'·""__
"~_'_'~_'~_""'~""",m'.'_"''''_'_'' ,...... ~,_.~
December 13,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did everybody get that, that
Commissioner Coletta was the motion maker and Commissioner
Halas, the second? Okay.
And the other public petition has been withdrawn, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2005-425: APPOINTING JERRY SANFORD TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY CITIZENS CORPS - ADOPTED
That brings us to item 9 A. Again, for every -- the people that are
out there, paragraph 7 and 8, the ones that have to do with land use
and zoning and public hearings, we start those at one o'clock.
So the next item would be 9A, and that's appointment of a
member to the Collier County Citizens Corps.
MS. FILSON: This item is just to confirm the recommendation
by the Collier County fire chief of the association.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The only recommendation is
Jerry Sanford.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Jerry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve Jerry Sanford
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for membership on the Collier County
Citizens Corps by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner
Halas.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 27
".,..";.-",,,-~.._--'~""'-" '
December 13,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then it passes unanimously. Jerry
Sanford is appointed.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2005-426: REAPPOINTING TIMOTHY D. TOOLE
AND JOSEPH C. OVERBECK TO THE PARKS AND
RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 9B, and that's appointment of members to the Park and
Recreation Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the committee recommendations are
Timothy D. Toole and Joseph C. Overbeck. Are there any --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
those two committee recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to say that because I
wanted to say Tim Toole. I think that's such a neat -- Tim the Tool
Man or something, you know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He's a great guy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Motion for approval by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
Page 28
December 13, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
And Timothy Toole and Joseph Overbeck are reappointed to the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2005-427: APPOINTING STEWART C. BROWN;
JOHN M. BRUNNER; AND FAY E. GHORA YEB TO THE BLACK
AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 9C. It's appointment of members to the Black Affairs
Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve all three
applicants.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we need to name them by name,
County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: If you just indicate that the applicants as
showing in the executive summary, that should be sufficient.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. All three applicants showing
on the executive summary is --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala to approve all three applicants and second by
Commissioner Coletta.
I have a question. Was the fact that we don't have a
Page 29
December 13,2005
recommendation for lack of quorum due to the fact they don't have
enough members on the committee or they just didn't have enough
show up for that particular meeting?
MS. FILSON: I believe that they have a short member
committee, and I'm advertising again for more members.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do they have a quorum; that is, do they
have enough people on the committee now to create a quorum?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They do?
MS. FILSON: It's a nine-member committee, and there are--
and there are four vacancies. And when you fill this, it will be eight
members, so they'll still have five members.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. My preference is that the
committee should make a recommendation on these and they should
get a quorum and do so. But nevertheless.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I withdraw my question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: If you would like me to do that in the future, then
I'll extend the 41-day deadline that they have for those who can't get a
quorum.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But there is a motion on board to
approve these applicants at the present time, and I'm going to call the
motion.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
I'm opposed, so it passes 4-1. I'm opposed only because the
committee advisory board does not make a recommendation because
Page 30
December 13, 2005
they didn't have a quorum.
MS. FILSON: And that may be my fault, because in the -- they
have their 41-day deadline, then I say, the other option would be just
to give me the applicants and I'll let the board make the appointments.
So hopefully in your next meeting you'll have a quorum.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. My hope is that the -- is that these
advisory boards know the people that are applying or else at least meet
them, see them at the advisory board, ask them questions, and they
then can serve a very valuable purpose by making sure we have the
best people on these committees.
MS. FILSON: We may want to change the resolution or the
umbrella ordinance then, because I don't believe all of the -- all of the
applicants attend the meetings and -- I don't believe they do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's sort of important for advisory
committee meetings. If they don't take the time to become familiar
with what the advisory boards really do, then I have some concerns
about whether or not they're really qualified to serve on them, but
nevertheless. This is done.
But I don't know how the other commissioners feel about this.
Shouldn't we get the advisory boards to at least interview the
applicants for their committees to find out who is best qualified to help
them do their job?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think you're absolutely right. But
as far as maybe -- they might have a hard time making a choice. So
with the information that's given to us on the agenda, sometimes they
leave that to us to come up with that after we read all of the material
presented to us and basically the background on each one of the
members. So -- and of course, there's been times when there has been
recommendations and we basically overrode their decisions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we always have that option.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We always have that option.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Page 3 1
December 13, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I'm not sure if -- we're not sure
if it was because of a lack of a quorum or maybe they just felt like it
was hard for them to make a determination who was the top person,
top choice, and then the second person.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. They've said it was for lack of a
quorum.
MS. FILSON: Yeah. In this particular case, that was--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. But nevertheless. So the three
members, Stewart Brown, John Brunner, and Fay Ghoryeb are
appointed to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioners, there's another
way of looking at it. Hopefully these people that have been appointed
will take more interest in this and make sure that they're present at the
upcoming meetings that they have for these advisory committees, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- we can also hope that they're
going to take a real interest in this.
MS. FILSON: So the outcome is, we'll leave it as it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Those three people have been
appointed to the advisory board by a vote of 4-1.
MS. FILSON: But in the future, do you -- are you insisting that
everyone interview the applicants?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm merely asking that the advisory
boards at least talk with them, perhaps interview them at a meeting,
and then make recommendations to us. That's my personal
preference, because the more they know about the people who are
going to serve on the committee, the better recommendation they can
make to us.
MS. FILSON: Okay. So that's board direction?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's just mine. That's just my
opinion. I don't know if there's three nods here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I think that I'm -- I was hoping
Page 32
December 13, 2005
that the -- that the people that apply for positions on our advisory --
different advisory boards, if they're that interested, I would hope that
they would have a meeting with the people who are presently on that
board to have an idea of what -- you know, what their thoughts are,
what their ideas are, and what their goal is in regards to getting onto
this board.
So I really think that there should be input, and we always want
input. They can give us a direction of where we need to go. But after
we read the material, we can overrule that. But there's many times
that we take the direction of the advisory boards because we realize
that they have gone through a process, and we hope that they have
gone through a process, in regards to sorting out the candidates and
making sure that the candidates that they want on that board fulfill the
obligations that they're trying to strive for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, are there three nods on--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to get the boards to at least meet these
people and talk with them? Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: We could conceivably amend the ordinance.
Another method -- okay. We can do the resolution rather easily.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then there's three nods to do that.
Why don't you present us something that will achieve that goal.
Okay.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2005-428: APPOINTING JEFFREY SCOTT
ALLBRITTEN TO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
ADVISORY COUNCIL - ADOPTED
And the next one is appointment of member to the --
Page 33
-..---....-.....-.-.....-..-
December 13, 2005
MR. MUDD: Emergency Medical Services --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Emergency Medical Services
Advisory Council.
MR. MUDD: -- Advisory Council, 9D.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Jeff Allbritten.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve Jeff Allbritten, who is
the committee recommendation, by Commissioner Fiala, and second
by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2005-429: APPOINTING KIRK P. COLVIN TO
THE ISLE OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 9E. It's an appointment of member of the Isle of Capri Fire
Control District Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Kirk Colvin, the
recommendation from the committee.
Page 34
December 13, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2005-430: SUPPORTING LEE COUNTY
COMMISSION EFFORTS TO FIND SOLUTIONS TO LAKE
OKEECHOBEE FRESH WATER RELEASE ISSUES - ADOPTED
W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9F, and it's a
resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
supporting the Lee County Commission efforts to find solutions to the
Lake Okeechobee freshwater release issue, and this was an item that
Commissioner Henning mentioned to you at the last board meeting
that was coming forward to this board meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, we have this -- we have
this resolution in support of the Collier County -- Lee County Board
of County Commissioners. I believe Commissioner Henning brought
this forward.
I'm certainly in favor of it, but I do have a question about the
Page 35
December 13,2005
wording under the fourth whereas. It says -- it has further in
parentheses. It's uncertain to me as to whether or not we should -- we
leave it like that or if we take out the parentheses or just have it read,
damages to be sustained. How would you like for that to be done?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we don't want any further
damages for estuarine. It really doesn't matter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you have any concerns, we
could just scratch it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, what we could do, Commissioner
Henning, is just remove the parentheses, and just say, further damages
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to be sustained.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's an emphasis on --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Just take out the parentheses so
that -- is that okay for everybody?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I truly can't take credit for the
only one bringing this forward. The Marine Industries Association of
Collier County has a real concern about the water quality of--
affecting our estuary and sea life here in Collier County and pointed
out to me the effects of the Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee flushing and
how it affects our waters here in Collier County.
And that would also be a deterrent for some ecosystem tourism
that is afforded here in Collier County. As you know that 80 percent
of our lands are in preserves in Collier County. And they depend on
good water quality for their health and well-being.
And I just want to thank the Collier County Marine Industries
Association for pointing out how important it is, not only for this
Page 36
December 13, 2005
environmental endeavor of Lee County, but the whole State of
Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. And
would you like to make a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, we have a public speaker.
MS. FILSON: Speaker. Chris -- Christian Spliker (sic).
MR. SPILKER: Spilker.
MS. FILSON: Spilker.
MR. SPILKER: Good morning. I won't take much of your time.
I am Christian Spilker, president of Marine Industries, and I
would just like to echo Commissioner Henning's sentiments. Thank
you guys for considering this.
The marine industry is second only to tourism now in the State of
Florida in terms of revenue generated for the state. Last year was
between 14 and 15 billion dollars, and anything we can do to preserve
that heritage, clean, safe waters, good fisheries, we encourage that. So
I thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Spilker.
We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning for
approval, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
Yes, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. This just is to support their
efforts, but not get involved in any litigation; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that may come at a further
time, but that would be a request.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So as long as we're not
Page 37
'---"'''-
December 13, 2005
getting involved in the litigation process.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: I have one more speaker, sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did they sign up late?
MS. FILSON: No, it was my fault. It was over here. Jennifer
Heckler -- Hecker.
MS. HECKER: Good morning, Commissioners. Jennifer Hecker
representing the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy
wants to commend the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners for introducing a resolution supporting Lee County
commissioners' efforts to find alternatives to the Lake Okeechobee
discharges to the Caloosahatchee.
The Caloosahatchee River needs both minimal freshwater flows
and protection from excessive freshwater discharges from Lake
Okeechobee in order to maintain the balance necessary to restore its
water quality and its aquatic life.
Additionally, although Everglades initiatives are making strides
towards improved water management, they're not addressing a critical
component of Everglades restoration. Restoring the historical sheet
flow of Lake Okeechobee water south to the Everglades.
The current impediment to the sheet flow is the Everglades
agricultural area, which is currently situated between Lake
Okeechobee and the Everglades.
In order to create additional surficial storage of lake water
outside of the lake to provide an alternative to discharging harmful
excessive flows to the Caloosahatchee, and as an essential component
of Everglades restoration, fee simple acquisition and leasing of
Everglades agricultural area lands is imperative.
Currently these agricultural lands are being converted to
residential, so this window of opportunity is closing. The Collier
County BOCC is to be commended for considering to give its timely
Page 38
----_....
December 13, 2005
support to Lee's efforts to explore alternatives for less impact of Lake
Okeechobee water management. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you very
much.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By the way, it has been pointed out to
me that there appear to be many people in the audience who might be
waiting to address the Price Street development; is that true? It is
noted on the agenda that this will not be done until sometime after one
o'clock, so if you don't want to wait here, and be bored by us for the
next couple of years -- the next couple of hours, then you could leave
and come back at one o'clock and be assured it will not be discussed
until sometime after one clock. But if you'd like to --like to remain
and be entertained, we'll do our best.
Next item, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Sorry, David, do you need to ask him about, was
that motion to remove the parentheses or not?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's quite all right, we'll remove the
parentheses. I just wanted to ask the board, you've passed the
resolution. Now what do you want to do with it? Do you wish to
have some direction as to where it might be sent?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Send it up to Board of
Commissioners of Lee County, or we have a meeting with them this
Page 39
--,-,",..~......
December 13,2005
week at the joint MPO. We can also deliver it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe could, could we also see
that a copy of it gets to the mayor of Sanibel?
MR. WEIGEL: Certainly. I mean, I'm happy to -- very happy,
of course, to transmit it. I didn't want to take away the transmission in
case someone else or the chair would wish to do it. But yes, any
direction is perfectly fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me ask a clarification here also.
Do you believe that the Board of County Commissioners of Lee
County would prefer to distribute it to appropriate people themselves,
or should we distribute it to the Corps and everybody else?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Commissioner, I'd -- not only do
you send to Lee County, okay, and so that they have it -- and they'll
do what they have to do with it as they go through it, but you send one
to the Jacksonville district, to the Corps of Engineers, okay, that they
get a copy, you send one to the South Florida Water Management
District director so that she has a copy of it, and you might want to
send a copy of it to the Big Cypress Basin so that they have a copy
because they're pretty much our branch of the South Water
Management District, and I believe when you've got that, you've done
enough dissemination so that everybody knows it so that somebody
can't say, well, we didn't get a copy, how come you've got a copy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we've got the Lee County
Commissioners, the mayor of Sanibel, the Corps of Engineers, South
Florida Water Management District, and the Big Cypress Basin. All
right.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe you ought to send one also
to Fort Myers Beach, the mayor there, because that has a big impact in
that area, because that's where the Caloosahatchee ends up dumping
In.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
Page 40
-'--~-'-""-
h" ~_,__,_"._
December 13,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe even the Conservancy, being
that they're supporting this in case they --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that distribution list is okay with
everybody on the board?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we give an award to the
Marine Industries Association for bringing this forward?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would a parking space be okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, a parking space.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Give him Commissioner
Henning's.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. Glad to give it up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Item #10D
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A CHANGE ORDER FOR
ADDITIONAL EXPENSES ABOVE $700,00 FOR BOTH MEDIA
AND PRODUCTION BILLED BY PARADISE ADVERTISING AT
THE GROSS AMOUNT TO CONTRACT 03-3537 BETWEEN
PARADISE ADVERTISING & MARKETING, INC. AND
COLLIER COUNTY FOR MARKETING AND ADVERTISING
COLLIER COUNTY AS A TOURISM DESTINATION IN THE
AMOUNT OF $200,000.00 FOR FINAL PAYMENTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2005 - TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE JANUARY 10,
2006 BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us pretty much to our
10 o'clock time certain item, which is number 10D. Again, this item
to be heard 10 a.m.
It's recommend approval of a change order for additional
Page 41
,··,..·----·..-,·,·-·"'"·-·-_.._·,"_·;_~~"·.·.__"__.._'_._._..__"W_0
December 13, 2005
expenses above $700,000 for both media and production billed by
Paradise Advertising at the gross amount to contract 03-3537 between
Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc., in Collier County for
marketing and advertising Collier County as a tourism destination in
the amount of $200,000 for final payments for fiscal year 2005. And
Mr. Jack Wert, director of tourism, will present.
MR. WERT: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, good morning. For the record, Jack Wert, your
Tourism Director.
This item is requesting approval of a change order for marketing
and advertising service provided to us by Paradise Advertising. I need
to ask you, as part of your action on this, to include in the motion that
in addition to approving the change order, that we're also requesting
authorization for the county manager or his designee, which would be
me, to execute that change order after approval by the County
Attorney's Office.
Just a bit of clarification. These expenses were budgeted and
were a part of our tourism budget for fiscal year '05, and each of those
expenditures were authorized by me through a formal -- a formal
estimate form that we use all the way through the year. Every
expenditure that we do with the agency is pre-authorized by an
estimate form.
Unfortunately, we have -- now have -- understand from the __
from county finance that we needed a change order in addition to us
approving those expenses going forward, that this change order was
also a necessary part, and because of the amount of the additional
funds, it needed to come to the county commission for approval.
These expenses were, as I said, budgeted. We set that $700,000
figure in the contract as kind of a guidepost for us. Up to that point
the agency is compensated for all of their internal time, the time to
research and place advertising on our behalf, then check it when it
comes through from each of the media sources.
Page 42
>--,-~._",.,..
>"'.._-~."'->~
December 13,2005
And for that, all agencies do get a standard agent discount or 15
percent. What we did in the case of this contract was up to $700,000,
we compensated the agency with a monthly service fee. It's a much
easier, cleaner way to do it. That way the agency is not always
looking for more advertising to place in order to gain additional
revenue from the client.
So this is a clean way. It is the standard operating procedure of
most people who deal with ad agencies these days to work on a fee
basis. But then above a certain level, and 700,000 was what we had in
this contract, then they would be able to bill and collect that agency
discount on media and also markup production.
We did that rather than go back and try to refigure what that
monthly fee would be for additional expenses. You never know
exactly what those additional expenses will be until we actually plan
and make those expenditures.
So we're asking for approval of that change order, which we
should have brought right away when we authorized those additional
expenses. We simply were not aware as a staff that we needed to do
that, so that's the reason that we're before you today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, Jack, actually this is really a
matter of housekeeping; is that correct?
MR. WERT: It really is. This is a -- we needed to do a change
order. We were not aware we needed to do one. We're bringing this
forth now. These are expenses that were part of the fiscal year '05
budget that we budgeted and got approval for our overall budget, and
these were included in that, so now we're trying to get the agency
compensated for those.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I make a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala.
Page 43
,.--,.-.".,_.,~ ,,-_... '"--~"'--'~""-""*'._~
, ~-···_··---···~--"-'·-"··'''·'·_____'_^·'_'M''____._
December 13, 2005
I do have a couple of questions, Jack. Please explain to me what
is the relationship to this after-the-fact approval and the one that we
discussed yesterday at the TDC meeting.
MR. WERT: Mr. Chairman, we actually have two contracts with
Paradise Advertising. One is what we're dealing with today, regular
advertising and promotion. We also have a contract for emergency
advertising. Those funds that we took out of our emergency funds this
past summer, and you were nice enough to authorize those
expenditures for us. Two separate contracts.
We, up until a couple of weeks ago, were under the assumption
that the two contracts were tied to this same $700,000. We are now
told they are not. They are totally separate contracts.
So what we dealt with yesterday at the TDC is not related to this
at all. They are two separate items. And I'm only dealing today with
these additional expenditures from fiscal year '05. It has nothing to do
with emergency advertising.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the approval of this after-the-fact
contract or expenditure will not in any way affect the other one that is
likely to come to us also?
MR. WERT: That's correct. They are totally separate issues.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I bring that up, for the board's
information, because the TDC did not take action on that contract
modification yesterday because some of the information was very
confusing, and we've asked Mr. Wert to bring that back for our
consideration at the TDC.
But nevertheless, I just wanted to make sure there was no tie-in
between these two.
Commissioner Halas, you had -- your light was on momentarily.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The button's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fortunately the county manager has
rigged his light so that it goes off instantly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good work.
Page 44
"--~~,_..,~,.,,,.. '-, -...."-^'-~..,~".,-'-.~,,~~,,.._---'"'",.
December 13,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so that means our meetings are
going to be much faster in the future. But I made the mistake of
recognizing it when it was on for that brief instant.
Go ahead, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. When I look at the
information that was provided to us in the agenda package, on page 4
of 6, you have circled there, unforeseen conditions. This was a
condition that -- why did the -- your staff or someone in your staff
circle that as unforeseen conditions?
MR. WERT: Well, I'm not absolutely sure, but these were
expenses that we had budgeted. The $700,000 was in the first year of
the contract. We have a three-year agreement with them. That's all we
had that first year for advertising.
We knew it would grow above and beyond what we had that first
year. We did a good job. We'd had more money for advertising.
And so we put that provision in the contract so that we had the
ability to pay for additional expenses next year, not knowing exactly
at the time what those would be.
When we budgeted for the last year, we did include this amount.
We had budgeted about a million dollars for advertising and
promotion in fiscal year '05, so we knew that this would come up. We
were just misinformed that we did -- that we had to have a change
order.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the total amount that you're
looking for then is, am I correct, at one million -_
MR. WERT: It's approximately 900,000. We didn't spend all of
the million dollars out of that, so it's about 900,000. So it's the
700,000 that's called for in the contract, plus an additional $200,000 in
regular advertising and promotion that we did with Paradise.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why was the 1,020,000 put in there
then?
MR. WERT: That was what we had budgeted, but, in fact, we
Page 45
--~-
December 13, 2005
did not spend all of that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm a little confused. Did the
Tourist Development Council hear this item?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't recall that we did.
MR. WERT: Not this one. Only because it's a change order, and
they had seen the budget early on. They knew we were going to
spend upwards of a million dollars. This is a technicality related to
the contract is all, that we didn't understand either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're actually
changing the contract?
MR. WERT: No, we're actually -- this is total -- in accordance
with the contract. It's just that it doesn't say in the contract we need a
change order but county finances indicated to us we do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the contract authorizes you
to expend funds for these particular items. I just don't understand
where it -- a change order is needed. But anyways, I don't -- I don't
think that's really a valid point.
MR. WERT: At this point we're just trying to get those expenses
paid for in accordance with the contract.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Basically what we're doing, I think,
is an amendment to the contract.
MR. WERT: It really -- no, because it doesn't say you have to
have a change order. That's what county finance is saying we need.
So that's what we're trying to get accomplished.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess that's where the confusion
lies between myself, and I think Commissioner Henning is we're not
really sure. It sounds like it's an amendment, but then you say, no, it's
not.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it's not. It's a requirement -- from
Page 46
-_,..--.....,..,"_,.."_,.,__"^~.,..,_.,._.._.._.".."__>0..".._"""...............
December 13, 2005
what we understand, it's a requirement in order to get the payment
done. The clerk required that this particular item be brought in front
of the board to add clarity to it so that they could pay this bill within
conscience as far as their particular agency is concerned. I believe
that's the case.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, the contract
actually says that we're going to pay $700,000, and anything over that
has to be -- has to come back for approval, which you have already
done. You budged a million two hundred thousand, or a million
twenty, right?
MR. WERT: Twenty thousand, right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the contract says, 700,000, and
anything additional to come before us, but you didn't realize it had to
come before us in a change order?
MR. WERT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. So we're doing what the
contract says.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I still have some questions
because I'm a little confused. Under considerations, the second to the
last sentence at the bottom, it says that media or production billing
over $700,000 annually will have prior written county approval and
we will be billed at 15 percent of the cost of bartered time. What is
the cost of bartered time?
MR. WERT: The executive summary is not totally complete.
That was a portion of that paragraph in the contract. What it says is,
that anything over $700,000, the agency will be able to bill at a gross
amount, which is 15 percent added to production. It's a -- taking the
discount provided by media of 15 percent.
Bartered media is another type of media. That's where you
exchange, let's say, hotel rooms for radio advertising time. And in that
case, the agency, if they bartered -- if they negotiated that barter, they
would be paid on the value of that at 15 percent.
Page 47
',------.... .- . .,....., ..~~._--,-
December 13,2005
In this case, barter is not a part of this at all. These are all-- these
are all hard expenditures. These were dollars that were actually
expended on our behalf for paid advertising and for production that
they did on our behalf.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me make sure -- I just want to
understand this concept of bartered time right now. So if we -- if we
purchase a certain amount of time, that is if the contractor purchases a
certain amount of advertising time, they get a 15 percent agency
discount --
MR. WERT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- on that. If they barter it for something
else, they get another 15 percent.
MR. WERT: Well, they wouldn't buy and barter the same thing.
It would be --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, they had to buy something to
barter.
MR. WERT: No, not necessarily. Radio stations will give you
time for something, and in this case it's not dollars. It might be, we
would go to some hotels and we would get some hotel room stays that
we would give to the radio station rather than dollars.
So there would be no dollars involved. But the same time that it
takes for the agency to negotiate that barter to follow up and find out
how those barter dollars were used, the radio station would still have
to give us an affidavit of what spots actually ran to advertise Collier
County. So there would be the same process involved in actual dollars
changing hands, but in the case of barter, no dollars, same amount of
work, and they would be compensated as they would for paid media.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, I am concerned about two
things, Mr. Wert. One is, this executive summary you've just sold me
is not complete, okay? The clerk has expressed concerns about the
payment of the bill.
How am I going to be really sure that I perfonn my fiduciary
Page 48
---~'~.""_""."-,_....,...,,......-.-,------"..
December 13,2005
duty if I don't have an executive summary that is, in fact, complete
and accurate?
The same thing occurred at TDC yesterday. We're going to have
to get things complete and accurate if we're going to make decisions
on them.
MR. WERT: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I certainly will not -- will not vote in
support of this approval until such time as I have a complete and
accurate executive summary. And secondly, I would like to see the
detailed billing from the contractor concerning this amount of money
that is being approved. But we have a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chainnan, would you like it
brought back?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be my preference. I think
it's very risky to have -- have the clerk question the payment of
something, and then us rush through and approve it based upon
incomplete and inaccurate infonnation. I think we should have
accurate infonnation if we're going to do this.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Is there anything about
this that's timely to the point where if we put it off to a January
meeting when we have more concise infonnation that it would
endanger anything?
MR. WERT: All of these expenses, Commissioner, are things
that the agency has already paid for. This is media that ran in last
fiscal year up to September 30th. So the agency will be carrying these
charges as long as it takes us to reimburse them for them. So they are
basically out this money. They've paid for these services that they've
provided on our behalf. So we would be putting it off until that time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to second Commissioner
Coyle's motion to have it brought back. You didn't realize you made
the motion.
Page 49
___n. '.. ,_.__, __....__..o_..._~_~_,___~
December 13, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't make the motion, but
Commissioner Fiala made a motion, but it did not have a second, so it
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Was it to bring it back?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it was to approve it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But she suggested that it might be
appropriate to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'll make a motion that we
bring it back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta has a
motion to bring it back. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. If I could get some input
from the clerk. Could you tell us what your stake is on this?
Obviously you've gone through this. Is there any questions that are
still pending from the clerk in regards to this?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, our primary concern was that it
was after the fact, that, in fact, we only had board approval for the
700,000. And when the invoices came in and the billing exceeded that
700,000, we needed to come back to you to approve the additional
amount.
The other issues that you're having with the concepts on Paradise
Advertising or policy decisions, those revert back to the board. But as
-- fiscally, it is merely because they exceeded the 700,000 that we felt
the board had originally approved. And so we're requesting that they
come back and get your approval for that additional amount of money.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have a warm and fuzzy
feeling over bartered time?
MS. KINZEL: That would be a policy decision, Commissioner,
that -- the board has agreed to that contract, and those are contractual
stipulations within that contract. So we try to ensure that there's
compliance of each payment with the contract stipulations, but __
Page 50
---......
December 13, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just wanted to mention, just
coming from the tourism industry myself, bartered time is something
that they do all the time. It isn't -- this isn't unique to just us. I mean,
even back in the dark ages when I worked in the tourism industry, that
was something that you automatically did, and all tourism
departments, or rather all tourism facets offer the same thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't want to sanction
bartering because there could be a voidance of paying certain taxes for
services. So when it does come back, that we want to state that we're
not sanctioning any deviations of law, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Why don't we ask the county
manager then to bring this back, incorporating the concerns -- or
addressing the concerns that have been expressed by the board.
I think we have a motion by Commissioner Coletta to do that.
There was not a second, but I'm sure that Commissioner Halas is
going to do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously, so we'll bring this
back.
Page 51
---......
.-......-.-..-..,.,--.
December 13,2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we'll bring it back the first meeting
of January.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That will be fine. Thank you.
Item #10A
RECOMMENDA TION FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER
RECEIVING DELEGATION OF BOAT DOCK PERMITTING
FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) _
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10A. It's a
recommendation for the board to consider receiving delegation of the
boat dock permitting from the United States Army Corps of
Engineers. Mr. Joseph Schmitt, your administrator for community
developments and environmental services will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Bill's going to present.
MR. MUDD: Excuse me. Mr. Bill Lorenz, your Director for
Engineering ( sic) Services will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Environmental.
MR. MUDD: Environmental, excuse me. I'll get it right.
MR. LORENZ: Yes. This is a follow-up to the October 11 th
meeting where the board heard a public petition from Robert Pritt
representing a group of marine contractors.
The purpose of today's meeting is really to seek the board's
direction to pursue a delegation of a -- to pursue a development of a
local operating agreement with the Corps of Engineers that would
essentially simplify and speed up the process for authorizing minor
boat dock type activities where impacts to manatees are minimal.
The agreement would allow the county to -- would allow the
Corps to delegate to the county a certain permitting authority of the
Corps of Engineers that would be -- that is identified through their
Page 52
---,..,_...~-"-,,-~~..-.. "'--'------""---"
December 13, 2005
general permit process.
Within your executive summary, I have attached a working draft
of an agreement. Again, this is -- the purpose of today's meeting is not
to approve the agreement, but to give staff direction to pursue the
finalization of agreement with the Corps.
On the second page of the executive summary, I simply bulleted
some of the major portions of an agreement of what we would bring
back to you if we got -- received the direction to do so. And staff __
essentially staff would be serving as a screening process for the Corps'
permits to identify which of those minor projects the staff could issue
a permit for the Corps, would be the Corps' permit, in addition to our
own county permit.
Those minor proj ects would be identified through the procedures
that are -- that the Corps has established. And one of the procedures
that exists is what's called a manatee key. I didn't include that in the
attachment of the executive summary, but essentially it asks about
three or four questions that would be applicable to Collier County
such that the county could determine very simply the location of a
proposed activity and whether that activity is affecting certain
protected vegetation.
Depending upon the answers to those two basic questions, the
county would either -- the county would either find that that activity
would be minor in nature and not affect the manatee, or if the answers
to any of those questions were no, you would simply kick that permit
to the Corps. The Corps would then send it to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife service for their review and determination as to whether or
not the Corps could issue the permit. So staff, again, is more in that
mode of a screening function.
The other activities that would be required in the agreement with
staff would establish some training and guidance from the Corps. We
would have to form -- forward the permit applications and drawings
up to the Corps of those permits that we have approved pursuant to the
Page 53
~-----
December 13,2005
delegation agreement. And then we'd, of course, have to provide the
Corps with a monthly report indicating the permitting type activities,
and that's essentially, at the moment, a working draft of an agreement.
Your direction today, again, as I said, would not adopt the
agreement, but simply provide staff the direction to work with the
Corps to finalize an agreement to come back to you at a later date.
The fiscal impacts of today's decision would simply authorize
staff to do that development of the agreement, and I'm just simply
estimating that that's about 40 hours of staff time to bring that
agreement back to you.
Of course, if the board were to implement an agreement, the
county would have to -- staff would be provided a certain amount of
time to review these permits for the Corps and issue the permits.
In your executive summary, I very conservatively estimated
roughly around four hours per project in addition to some
administrative time and reporting time to give you some sense of what
potentially we think this activity could -- could involve. That works
out to be about a third of an FTE.
Again, I think that's conservative, and we can -- would have more
precise estimates for you with a final agreement if so directed by the
board.
So again, we are requesting that the commission give the staff the
authority to begin to work on an agreement with the Corps and bring it
back to you at a later date.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. This sounds -- this
recommendation sounds like it will, indeed, save the applicant a lot of
time as the permitting process takes place. I was wondering though,
will it also reduce the cost to the applicant, being that they don't have
to go to the Army Corps, nor Florida Fish and Wildlife?
MR. LORENZ: It would certainly reduce their cost in terms of
time. That's a good question, and with regard to application fees.
Page 54
..__,........_m
",-' "._-_-.._._-~-_.._-
December 13, 2005
We would -- the county would have to increase our application
fees some marginal amount to cover the cost our -- of our fee, but we
would not be collecting a fee for the Army Corps or for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife service. So to the degree that our increase in fee is not
greater than the fees to the Corps, then yes, they would be certainly
saving permitting fee time -- permit fees and time as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And normally they do have to pay
for Army Corps and Fish and Wildlife--
MR. LORENZ: I know that there's a group of marine contractors
here. I'm not -- they could probably answer that question for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some questions. In the past
the county would issue permits, and there were applicants that needed
to get Corps permits and never got them, and then we ended up tearing
out some mangroves in particular areas. How do you envision that this
is going to address that issue so that we don't continue to tear out
mangroves in areas that are just the other side of sea walls?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. Of course, the county has its own
requirements for vegetation removal. We would -- we would be
reviewing the permits according to our requirements.
The current key -- and I'm not sure on exactly the details of
working it out, but I know the manatee key that the staff would apply
to a permit, if there were to be sensitive vegetation -- and the question
is is how much, and that's a point of detail I'm not sure of yet. But
let's say that it would be sufficient enough for the county to then kick
that permit up to the Corps, then the Corps and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service will have to determine whether that impact on the
vegetation would be significant enough to affect manatees and, thus,
put that applicant in a different type of permitting requirement.
So that -- so the answer -- so to answer your question,
Commissioner, that we would apply our standards, and the Corps and
Page 55
~-----.. --
""-~----~".
December 13,2005
Fish and Wildlife Service would apply their -- their requirements,
because we would then kick that permit back up to them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's happened in the past is
we've issued a permit and it's -- there's been destruction of mangroves,
and yet the county never caught it. So I'm not sure how we're going to
administer this policy and still have control over whether the people
are going to go in there and destroy a section of mangroves to put a
dock in. It hasn't been done in the past by the county, so I'm just
wondering how you are going to be able to police it.
MR. LORENZ: Well, of course, we will police it through the
permit application. So as soon as a permit application comes in to the
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But it hasn't been done in the past.
MR. LORENZ: And that becomes then an enforcement action
that the county would have to take.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what I'm saying is, we've
never followed up before where Corps permits were not followed
through. You're trying to administer or have the ability to administer
those Corps permits.
My question is, if somebody comes in and you don't realize
there's mangroves there, how are you going to know whether to issue
the permit or not, okay? What kind of follow-up are you going to go
(sic) to that particular area?
MR. LORENZ: We will need to be working with the building
department, from environmental services and building department
such that when a permit comes in -- and we'll have to identify those
types of permits that would then get kicked to the environmental
services department for our screening review.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you saying that when
somebody has a permit, that you're going to have staff to go out there
to see where the placement of the dock is going to be?
MR. LORENZ: It could depend upon the location of where that
Page 56
'----
">~--"--_.,.,.
December 13,2005
dock is. We can identify up front some areas where we would not
require a site inspection. Other areas possibly we would have to
require a site inspection, and that's where -- that's where coming up
with a precise estimate of the amount of time it would take staff to
administer this program, we'll have to work those details out as we
develop the delegation agreement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've witnessed where there were
areas of concern and somebody's gone in there and removed the
mangroves and put a dock in there, and there has been nothing done
about it, as far as the county and the individual or whoever, never got
a Corps permit, okay?
My concern is, somebody comes in and you want to administer
that Corps permit, how are you going to make sure that there isn't a
whole set of problems in that particular area?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe -- and I'm going to help __
I'm going to help Bill a little bit.
That was the case a couple years ago, I believe. And it used to be
the county would issue the permit, but it would not be valid pending
the permits from the Fish and Wildlife and the Corps of Engineers.
We didn't know at the time that they came in with those permits
or didn't get those permits -- so our permit issued was in abeyance and
they weren't supposed to proceed with work.
Mr. Schmitt, to his credit, as he saw the particular process, quit
doing that in community developments, and he would not issue a
county permit for docks, and that's how this petition came in front of
you and the reason for it, because he wouldn't issue it at all until the
applicant gave them the Corps and the Fish and Wildlife permit. And
then when they had those two in their hot little hand, he would issue
the county permit, and they would go through their due diligence
before they issued it. And so Mr. Pritt came before you several
months ago and says, maybe there's a better way to do this.
The delegation from the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and
Page 57
-.--.,
" --~------.
-~""""--""""~'''-''~-~''-'~-''--'' "---
December 13, 2005
Wildlife will be done on a certain very detailed sheet that tells the
county what they can do and what they can't do as far as the issue is
concerned, and they will be very constrained upon that delegation by
the -- those federal agencies.
Anything above and beyond or outside of that particular
delegation, let's say it's a hot little manatee area, okay, and they didn't
delegate us so that we could issue in a hot manatee area, we would
have to go back up through the chain for Fish and Wildlife and the
Corps of Engineers to chop off on that because it exceeds our
delegation.
So this is going to be confined to a very limited and -- and small
area in order to do it for those agencies. It will not be a general
holistic delegation of their particular permitting duties to Collier
County. Nobody ever does that. It's very confined and it's very -- it is
very specific in the particular documents that are agreed to when that
happens.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one other question, and that
is, will you have jurisdiction over outstanding Florida waters, or will
that be something that you will delegate up further in the chain?
MR. SCHMITT: That's a state.
MR. LORENZ: Outstanding Florida waters is a state -- is a state
designation. We will want to bring the state into this evaluation to
create the mechan -- create the detailed mechanism so that we're also
coordinating with the state as well.
So although this delegation of authority agreement that you're
seeing here is with the Corps, talking with the Corps representatives is
-- they have told me that they want to sit down with the state, get us all
together, ensure that what we're doing is going to fit the state
requirements as well. So that will be -- that will have to be a
component of the total program.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so whatever is --
whatever is hammered out will then -- will eventually be brought back
Page 58
.._-_.._..-..,"---,,-----~ ~'---".,
December 13,2005
to us to either approve or to look at or to see how this is all going to be
administered; is that correct? Is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Commissioner, again, just for the record,
Joe Schmitt, Administrator of Community
Development/Environmental Services Division, and that's -- in answer
to your question in regards to enforcement, as we point out in the
agreement, section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, if there's a
violation, that's really a state violation, or correction, a federal
violation, and that would be the federal aspect of enforcement.
Weare not going to get involved in enforcement at the federal
level. Those kind of violations that you point out would have to, in
fact, go back to the Corps of Engineers for enforcement. That's out of
our jurisdiction.
Certainly if there are areas that are illegally cleared within our
jurisdiction, through code enforcement we would deal with it. The
state has certain jurisdictional rights over that. And then, of course,
the Corps, under the Clean Water Act or the Rivers and Harbors Act.
So these are pretty routine throughout at least the east coast of the
country .
When this thing -- even before Mr. Pritt brought this up -- this is
something in my former career, I worked extensively on -- in areas of
the State of Georgia, and this is pretty routine in areas of the State of
Florida as well. It's just a matter of going through the process and
working the -- what was basically a programmatic regional permit
with the Corps.
And you will be signators along with the Jacksonville district
engineer in regards to delegation of authority. And all we're going to
have is a go, no-go map. If it's in an area that says, issue the permit,
we'll issue the permit. If it's in an area that says, we have concerns, we
send it up to the Corps, and then they -- and they deal with it.
So it's sort of nothing more than a pre approval process for certain
areas of our coastal Collier County.
Page 59
~---
December 13, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't want to, you know,
belabor this point because we do have some speakers, but the -- I think
that we'd have more control on oversight than the agencies. They issue
a permit, but there's really no oversight of the construction of. They
don't have anybody that comes down and inspects the __
MR. SCHMITT: No, not the -- Commissioner, that is -- under
the building -- in the building review and permitting, all we do is
inspect those areas that are applicable to the Florida Building Code,
either electrical over water or some other type of utility. But the dock
construction is not an inspectable item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay, okay. My mistake.
But I just, you know, want everybody to know because they were
talking about hot manatee areas --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the docks don't molest
manatees, you know, they don't eat manatees, harass manatees, you
know, things like that, so the public doesn't get that misperception that
it's, docks are really bad.
MR. SCHMITT: It's really limitation due to the boat -- boat
access is really what the issue is involved here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern wasn't so much the
issue of manatee. My concern was destruction of the mangroves that
are part of the environment.
MR. SCHMITT: And that's part of the normal review and
permitting process through the local, the state, and the feds.
If it's an issue in regards to areas that have concern, we certainly
know where mangroves are along the shore, and this process would
more clearly delineate but also alert the staff in order to say, hey, this
one may be one that we need to make sure that the appropriate permits
are in place.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess what I'm stating is, there is
Page 60
..----"....þ
"~~~--~
December 13,2005
some established neighborhoods that there was never any docks in that
particular area, and then there's been an establishment of mangroves
that has established themselves, and then there's been, let's say, a new
residence put up, and then all of a sudden the mangroves are gone.
MR. SCHMITT: And there are procedures to allow for access.
There are certain riparian rights that allow for access. It's just a matter
of the process of clearing and how wide you can clear and those type
of things, and that would be part of the permitting process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a 10-minute break,
then we'll take the public speakers, okay. We'll be back here at 10:46.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're ready for public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Public speakers.
MR. MUDD: This is item lOA. It has to do with the boat dock
permitting issue and the Corps of Engineers' delegation of authority to
-- potential Corps of Engineers' delegation OF authority to Collier
County .
MS. FILSON: And Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And there are three.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have two speakers. The first
being Bruce Anderson. He'll be followed by Christian Spil -- Spiker
(sic).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Anderson will be limited to
30 seconds.
MS. FILSON: Spilker, okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress law firm.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, Bruce.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm filling in for my partner, Robert Pritt,
Page 61
~--_. ~.__......._.. ¥'""'~--""-""",""_.~,,.
- ~,..........,~.",~
December 13,2005
who had a conflicting hearing in Sanibel this morning.
I want to be sure and thank Mr. Lorenz and Mr. Schmitt for their
hard work on this and just point out, as the executive summary does,
that approval of this recommendation would further goal 13 of the
Conservation and Coastal Management element to avoid unnecessary
duplication of existing regulatory programs.
My clients are all here today and would be happy to answer your
questions. We urge you to approve the staff recommendation. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson.
MS. FILSON: And your final speaker is Christian Spilker.
MR. SPILKER: There you go. Good morning, again. I'd like to
thank you for scheduling these so close so I can speak to you twice.
I won't take too much of your time. I just want to point out if __
everybody from the marine industry, if you could raise your hand in
the audience right now. They're all members that are really interested
in seeing this happen.
I'm just going to take two seconds here and explain the process.
I've got two hats on, president of Marine Industries, but also my day
job is permitting docks.
And when an individual, single-family homeowner goes through
the process, they come to my company and they say, we need to -- we
need to build our dock. I say, all right, well, there's three permits you
have to get. You have to go -- first you're going to have to go to the
state. You need to get an exemption or a permit, depending on the
layout.
After that, it's got to go to the Army Corps of Engineers, who
goes to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and gets you a permit. Now,
that process alone, if you came to me and asked me, I'd tell you it's six
to nine months to get that done, and that's simply because the Corps is
looking at big projects, wetland projects. They're not -- don't really
have the dedicated staff to single-family dock permitting. They've got
,
Page 62
__.,_, .'.,. <",o_~,__
December 13, 2005
one person that does that.
After all that is done, then we hand it to a dock builder, who then
comes and acquires the county permit. What we're asking to do is to
take a look at this process, and for very simple projects, pull the Corps'
oversight into the county, which the county staff, there's going to be a
little bit of additional time, but really their review process already
takes into account 90 percent of what the Corps is going to look at.
So what you're doing is streamlining for your constituency a
process where someone takes a year to get a permit. Now it hopefully
will take them a couple months.
So I appreciate the time. Staff has been very helpful with us on
this, and I appreciate their time, and I'm happy to answer any
questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. SPILKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, do you have
something?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning has made a
motion for approval, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a question of staff. What is the
liability to Collier County if you review this and issue a permit and
then some kind of bad result occurs with respect to environmental
issues?
MR. LORENZ: Well, we'd be issuing this in terms of the
delegation of authority for the Corps. I'm not really sure of that -- of
that answer. Specifically it would be part of the delegation agreement,
Page 63
N___.,_".,...>_~__,,~__._
December 13,2005
and that's what -- we will definitely have the county attorney's office
involved with that to be able to identify exactly how that liability
would work through.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the agreement has to come
back to us for approval anyway --
MR. LORENZ: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- right, so you'll address it at that point
in time.
MR. LORENZ: Address that.
MR. MUDD: That's in the recommendation that you -- that
you've got a motion and second for right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is approved unanimously. Thank you
very much.
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT FOR
SALE AND PURCHASE TO ACQUIRE A RESIDENTIAL LOT
FOR EXPANSION OF THE COUNTY'S BA YVIEW PARK AT A
COST NOT TO EXCEED $287,875, PROJECT 800601 _
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is lOB. It's a
Page 64
-_..""_.....,.~.".,...-~---~
~-'-"'''''--
December 13, 2005
recommendation to approve an agreement for sale and purchase to
acquire a residential lot for expansion of the county's Bayview Park at
a cost not to exceed $287,875. It's project 800601. And Ms. Marla
Ramsey, your administrator for public services, will present.
MS. RAMSEY: Good morning, Commissioners. One of the
reasons that this is sitting before you today is that the appraised value
of this lot came in at $255,000. The asking price is $285,000, and so
it needs a supermajority vote on it.
I did want to share with you a little bit about the historical
purchases that we've made in the Bayview area so far. And you can
see that the red elements that we have -- you have that?
The red elements are the ones that we've purchased along the
roadway there for the parking expansion, and then there's a few of the
other ones. I should say -- I'm sorry, purple. Color blind here at the
moment. Purple and the red ones are the ones that we've just recently
purchased to help to expand the parking in the Bayview area.
The lot that we're looking to purchase on this executive summary
is the bluish colored one located on this GIS version of it. It's a small
lot about 50 by 138. It's located at 1796 Danford.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where is that in relation to the others
you've already purchased?
MS. RAMSEY: The yellow ones are the purchased ones that we
showed as purple on the other slide.
I'll give you a schematic of our first phase of this as we move
forward with the purchase. This is how we envision the first part of the
parking lot looking. We still have some lots, of course, to purchase in
order to make that. We wanted at least one lot on the opposite side of
the areas that we're looking at. I want to make a connection. It could
be a walking connection or it could be a drive. In this schematic it
shows it as a walking connection, but a drive is also an opportunity at
that location. And so that is the significance of this particular lot and
its location, is to get a connection on the other side.
Page 65
--..-,---.
'_'_~".~__"d'_'__"_W_"'_~"""_
December 13,2005
And I will tell you that we are looking at the lot to the south.
Currently right now -- and hopefully we'll be bringing back a contract
for you in January on that one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Marla, could you tell us, what is the
orientation of the parking, if you can show us this diagram with the
blue? Is it going from north to south?
MS. RAMSEY: We've got a small retention plan on--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oops, that's the wrong place.
MS. RAMSEY: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go to the blue one.
MS. RAMSEY: This blue right here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That's the one you're talking
about, right?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, that's north and south.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, how do you get into the
parking area from Danford Street?
MS. RAMSEY: Let me go back to the schematic that we're
planning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, now --
MS. RAMSEY: This would be the blue area. This is the
purchase that we're looking at right now is this section right here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, you're -- you've got me
confused here. Your diagram doesn't show an 800- foot long --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this blue area you're getting isn't
going to be able to park a trailer.
MS. RAMSEY: Not yet.
MR. MUDD: Okay? What it's going to basically be is an access
road so that you can use your gold areas or yellow areas you
purchased already so people can go in and park their particular trailer
and then be able to take the access road through those two -- two
properties.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go back to the previous slide then. This
Page 66
December 13, 2005
is getting more and more complex.
MS. RAMSEY: This is a work in progress, Commissioner. We
will be purchasing these lots as we go along, and this would be our
ultimate opportunity right now. As we go along, what we would look
to see is we would start putting parking areas in here that would come
back out. Once we get this parcel here, they come out here and drive
through and go back here. As we continue to purchase lots, we will be
able to expand that parking as we go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the prior parking lot diagram you saw
is not the parking lot design that would appear on the blue portion that
you are proposing to purchase, right?
MS. RAMSEY: No. That would be encompassing of this entire
area; would start here and would roll all the way down to here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So you're anticipating that you'll
buy those other -- actually two, four, six, seven lots, maybe eight lots.
Okay. I understand.
So that parking lot diagram that you have on the next slide has no
relevance to the properties you're purchasing except for the water
retention pond and a little road that goes through a corner of it. That's
the only thing you're planning on doing with that particular parcel that
you're purchasing, right?
MS. RAMSEY: This, again, could be -- as we go forward with
our plan if we're able -- come in, and we could start putting in parking
facilities in this location here, they could come in, come out, and we
would have the capability of them making that drive back here rather
than coming out and going all the way around and back.
So, yes, there's a couple of different options. This could be a
. road or this could be a pathway even for people to walk down and cut
back in order to get to their boats. So there's two phases in here as we
move forward through the years. This is a process that's going to take
some time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Page 67
,....,,^~-,-_.~_.'''..., ~
December 13, 2005
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Thank you for fixing my
light.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think you've answered my
question through Commissioner Coyle.
There was one diagram where you had a couple of pieces of
property that were on the north side of Danford Street, is that correct,
too, two small pieces? Three pieces, okay.
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, Commissioner. These--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What do you envision here for the
whole area? Because obviously we've got some areas down here in
the lower right-hand corner that have already been purchased, some
lots, and then we're looking at the additional lot that is in discussion
today. So are you envisioning that we're going to buy everything both
north and south of Danford?
MS. RAMSEY: Possibly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm just trying to figure out
what we've got planned here for the future.
MS. RAMSEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I mean, let's be upfront about
what we're trying to do here. Now, the three red lots that we've
purchased, what is that going to be used for? Is that going to be
possibly, if we buy the other lots, to widen Danford at that point in
time for a turnaround area for Bayview?
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. Let me help with these two lots right
here. These two lots currently are inside our park boundary but are
not owned by the park, and they just -- they are conducive to having,
within our -- within our park element here. They are mangrove. This
whole section right in here is a mangrove area. But we purchased
these here because they are within the park boundaries, and it does
give us a little more flexibility with our parking here.
Page 68
",...,..,.",,~- ...
December 13, 2005
This parcel here was picked up, probably one of the first ones
that was picked up as we were trying to bring in parking very close to
where we were.
We've run into some difficulty with the homeowners along here.
They've been there for numerous years. They really want to stay in
homes until they die, and we're trying to work creatively with them.
Reverse mortgages, for example, would be one of the things where we
could purchase the property now, give them the money, let them live
there until their passing. So we're looking at a number of different
options.
We were able to secure a fairly large section up in this area here,
and that's why we've started now in this corner, working our way into
this plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so this piece of
property that you are -- we're looking at today to negotiate with,
there's a residence on that property; is that correct?
MS. RAMSEY: No. This is a vacant lot.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's a vacant lot, okay.
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. As is the one that we would bring to you
in January.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Which one's that, the other one that
you talked about where there was another vacant lot below it, right?
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. These two right here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So is the game plan to run
all the way to the west to -- closer to Bayview Park eventually?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. At this moment what we're trying to do is
bring this section here and then cut through and come into this
direction. When we're able to purchase some additional lots up in this
area, we'll continue to do that.
The direction that we received from the board is to go ahead and
try and get as many lots in that area as possible. And as you know, the
prices are starting to accelerate in that area, making it a little bit more
Page 69
-,---'~_..~
December 13, 2005
difficult. But we are making progress.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you'd also remember a little while
ago you received a PUD document, okay, for this wooded area in the
back. And one of the plans that they showed you was a rather large
boat storage facility that was going to be put in there. That doesn't
exist today. But I believe when it shows up, the folks that are living
along that street down there aren't going to be real happy.
And so -- and if you also remember, during a peak time for
boating, boats are lined up all along this road all the way out, going all
the way down to Windstar's back gate, and then some.
And what we're trying to do in this particular case is alleviate that
problem by providing parking, appropriate parking, for the park that's
basically generated all that truck and trailer.
And you also remember when we took a bus down there, how
tight it was. And that gets to be part of this situation of, how do you
get a boat -- let's say a pickup truck and a trailer, how do you get it so
that it can get from one place to the other and do it safely, and I
believe what Marla described to you by being able to park in those
purple areas, and then basically take that blue area with the connecting
one down, gives you a circular route where people can do that safely
without impacting the health, safety, and welfare of the people that
live in this particular community.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you also like to tell the
commissioners of the two houses that were starting to be built? We
were lucky enough to be able to snap up the property, but the -- but
not before the builder finished building them, so there are two houses
that could be used for employees, and I thought, I bet they'd interested
in hearing that.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. There's two houses that exist over here
on those two lots when we purchased the properties. Those are houses
that haven't been -- that were finished, that haven't been inhabited by
Page 70
, .....__.._-_._._._._,._-,....,.._"."'~~."'-
December 13, 2005
anyone at this particular time.
Depending on Marla's plans and how soon she can get things
done in this particular area with budget and other things, we might
come back to this board and talk to you about short-term leases for
folks that come in while they're looking for housing and things like
that in order to use those particular facilities. That's getting money
back for Collier County by using them in the short term, I believe.
That's probably a win-win for everyone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Any
questions by commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you very
much, Marla.
Item #10C
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
AGREEMENT NO. 05-3865 FOR ENGINEERING AND
PERMITTING SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY CH2MHILL,
INC., FOR THE SIX-LANING OF COLLIER BOULEVARD FROM
GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TO PINE RIDGE, PROJECT NO.
Page 71
December 13,2005
68056. CIE 13. IN THE AMOUNT OF $2.028~745.00 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10C. It's a
recommendation to approve professional service agreement number
05-3865 for engineering and permitting services to be provided by
CH2MHill, Inc., for the six-Ianing of Collier Boulevard from Golden
Gate Boulevard to Pine Ridge Road, project number 68056, CIE 13, in
the amount of $2,028,745, and Jay Ahmad, who's your director of
engineering for transportation, will present.
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Again, my name is Jay Ahmad. I'm your Director of Transportation
Engineering and Construction Management.
We're asking your approval for this item, which is essentially to
approve the agreement for -- to select CH2MHill to design the proj ect,
Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to Pine Ridge Road in
the amount of two million, twenty-eight dollars seven -- two million,
two -- two million -- two zero, two eight, seven four five.
This project, staff solicited proposals for this -- from qualified
consultants. Five engineering firms submitted the proposals, their
proposals. And staff -- selection committee was chosen to interview
those -- and review those proposals.
Three consultants were short-listed, and they were CH2MHill,
Stanley Consultants, and American Consulting Engineers, and the
rankings were in the order I just mentioned. CH2MHill were ranked
__ top ranked. And staff entered into negotiation with the top ranked
firm, and we were successful in getting the agreement before you. And
we recommend the approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- approximately how long
is this roadway that's being proposed?
MR. AHMAD: It's -- again, it's from Golden Gate Boulevard to
Pine Ridge. Approximately -- I don't have the exact number, but it's
Page 72
December 13, 2005
over two miles.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, I travel, and that's
what I thought. So it's about hundred -- it's a million dollars a mile
approximately. In the contract it really doesn't give a breakout of the
permitting versus oversight.
MR. AHMAD: The contract in the exhibit, I think Exhibit B,
goes through 30 percent, 60 percent, 90 percent, and there is a detailed
matrix that's submitted by the consultant that would give details, scope
of service, and the man-hours allocated to that service. I'm not sure if
it is part of that. I don't believe it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Maybe I missed that
Exhibit B. I seen C, but I didn't see B. So there are actually --
MR. AHMAD: Commissioner, if I may, it is design services, not
CEI, for this project. It's design and permitting for this project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. All right. That's where
I'm confused, because it -- in our executive summary it says CEI --
CIE. Oh, that's where I'm confused. I'm getting my I's and E's mixed
up. What did we learn in school?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I before E.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I before E.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except after C.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Except after C.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: C, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I want you to know I lost a spelling
contest because I didn't know that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you really?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I did, when I was a kid.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Couple years ago?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, a couple years ago.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
MR. AHMAD: You're welcome. Just to add also, this project
does include a portion of the intersection, a portion of Golden Gate
Page 73
-,.,,--~..~_."_.^
December 13,2005
Boulevard design and also includes permitting for the south portion of
__ between Golden Gate to the south to address some drainage and
permitting issues, so the designer will design 30 percent of that
project, Pine Ridge to Green.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It's clear as mud now. I
appreciate it. Thank you. No offense.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sort of like the mudslide?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How soon is this project going to
get started and when -- what's the best completion date? You're
talking in executive summary we're only at the 30 percent design
stage.
MR. AHMAD: This actually has -- the design stage hasn't
started. This is item 10C. We are asking this commission to approve
the design, the beginning of the design process. We're hoping that
construction --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: .It says 30 percent in design and
preliminary permitting, yeah.
MR. AHMAD: We're hoping by 2008 we go to construction, late
2008.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I have another question that
doesn't really pertain to this item on the agenda, but it does pertain to
that roadway, and that is, the area that's south of Immokalee Road on
951, what's the time frame on that? As I drive by there, I see more
and more rooftops, but I don't see any widening of the road from
Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
MR. AHMAD: That project, Commissioner, is due -- the bids
are due to come in, I believe, on the 15th of December. The bids will
be opened on that date, and we hope to go to construction early next
year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. AHMAD: We will come to you with a recommendation to
Page 74
...-...-..........----..--.
December 13, 2005
approve a contractor for that proj ect in January.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's good to hear, because as I
said, I see more and more rooftops there, and I don't see anything
happening there, and I'm concerned of the impact of traffic.
MR. AHMAD: We have encountered certain permit issues that
we're still resolving. We're going to try to open the bids with two
notice-to-proceed processes that would allow us to work on the section
that we have a permit for, and we would issue a later notice to proceed
for the section that we don't have permits on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. AHMAD: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there -- there are no public
speakers, right?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2005-431: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE
Page 75
December 13,2005
INTERESTS AND/OR THOSE PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY
EASEMENT INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) FROM US41 TO MAIN
GOLDEN GATE CANAL. (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
NO. 86, PROJECT 60001). ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT:
$5.437.500.00 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10E, and that is a recommendation to adopt a resolution
authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase of the simple interest
and! or those perpetual or temporary easement interests necessary for
the construction of roadway, drainage and utility improvements
required for the expansion of Collier Boulevard/County Road 951
from U.S. 41 to the Main Golden Gate Canal.
It's capital improvement element number 86, project number
60001. Estimated fiscal impact is $5,437,500, and Mr. Jay Ahmad,
your director of engineering for transportation, will present.
MR. AHMAD: Once again, my name is Jay Ahmad, your
Director of Transportation Engineering and Construction
Management.
Before you, this item is staffs recommendation for you to adopt a
resolution that's attached to the executive summary to allow staff to
enter into agreements with willing owners for purchase of easements
and right-of-way for Collier Boulevard. That project's from 41 to
Davis -- actually from 41 to just the Main Golden Gate Canal, which
is just north of 1-75.
And I believe this was on your consent item, except it has a
dollar amount, a large dollar amount of five million -- five, four three
seven, five hundred. And we ask for your approval of this resolution.
Page 76
-_.<_.~.~~..~... """~'--
December 13,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You claim that -- or you state in the
executive summary here, we're looking at 4.5 -- or $5.4 million. How
close is that estimate, or do you think that's going to escalate even
more?
MR. AHMAD: It's a good question, Commissioner. Lately we
have been coming up with appraisals, and appraisals on the other side
have been coming substantially higher than our appraisal, and we've
been negotiating. At times we meet in the middle. At times we go to
condemnation and -- before we come again before this board.
To answer your question, we haven't been coming close, our
appraisals versus the appraisals that are completed by the owners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You said we're coming -- we have?
MR. AHMAD: We have not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do you think in the future
that it would be proper to basically put down what the appraisals of
both sides are or maybe come up with an overall average of them
versus us as an average?
MR. AHMAD: We have -- we have staff appraisals and we also
consult with appraisals. And both come up with a dollar amount for a
given property. And based on that is what we consider is the county's
appraisal. And, of course, we negotiate with owners based on that.
And many times you are successful to reach an agreement. And this
resolution will allow us, at those times when we reach the agreement,
to purchase those parcels.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. AHMAD: And at times we don't reach that agreement and
we go into a different --
Page 77
December 13, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go into mediation then --
MR. AHMAD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- at that point in time.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This agreement is not for condemnation.
This is for an agreement type mechanism. We'll go out there and
try to start reaching those agreements. If Mr. Feder finds out that he
can't get agreements with everyone for that right-of-way, then he'll
come back to this board and ask for a condemnation resolution in
order to go after those particular parcels, and that puts us in a different
arena in order to get things done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, this just brings up a good
point, and this was some of the items that was discussed yesterday in
regards to putting a cap on impact fees. So just to let everybody know
that a cap is not the way to go unless, of course, the landowners and
the builders are going to put a cap on everything. Obviously that's not
going to happen.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, if I could, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator, for the record. You also need to
understand, when we do these estimates -- and I want to make sure the
record shows this -- we're trying to get a true, fair appraised value for
the property, because our desire is to negotiate closure on it. What
we're also facing as we negotiate, constantly escalating value of the
land as well, to add to your point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala for
approval.
All in favor, please signify by saying.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 78
..-".".__..-._.~,-
____" ....._"._,___~.._____.·o_
December 13, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #10F
RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ESTABLISH A FREEDOM MEMORIAL
P ARK AT THE MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPLEX IN ORDER TO
RECOGNIZE AND HONOR AMERICA'S FREEDOMS ALONG
WITH HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL EVENTS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 1 OF. It's a recommendation to have the Board of County
Commissioners establish a Freedom Memorial Park at the main
government complex in order to recognize and honor America's
freedoms along with historical and cultural events.
Ms. Len Price, your Administrator for Administrative Services,
will present this particular item.
MS. PRICE: Good morning, Commissioners. Len Price,
Administrator for Administrative Services.
Several meetings ago you asked us to bring this item back to you
to look at the potential for having a Freedom Memorial Park on this
campus.
After looking at all of the possibilities, our recommendation to
you is that we designate the entire campus as a Freedom Memorial
Park with the opportunities for any individuals or organizations that
would like to submit a proposal for either a monument -- or we're
really trying to promote green space and, perhaps, trees and plantings
for that type of purpose with a plaque.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can I ask a question?
MS. PRICE: You may.
Page 79
December 13, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Would it be better to provide the
opportunity to do these kinds of things in any of our parks in the
county provided it meets our requirements? If you try to consolidate
everything here, it probably won't get as much exposure as if you
distributed it through some of the other parks that are more heavily
used. Is there a reason we wouldn't consider another park?
MS. PRICE: No, there really isn't any specific reason. We
would have to look at each park and site development plan, the
zoning, et cetera, et cetera.
As I say, we were asked about putting it here in conjunction with
the freedom memorial monument that's hopefully going to be built
within the next few years, and that was the direction that we took. If
you'd like us to look at expanding that to the other parks, we can
certainly look into the feasibility of doing that as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And for the benefit of the other
commissioners, I have -- had asked the staff to at least look at the
possibility, not of accepting recommendations to be placed in our
parks on a continuing basis, but yet require certain windows of
opportunity for people to submit.
F or example, you wouldn't want to have a submission every
month throughout the year because you wouldn't know the full range
of submissions at the beginning of the year and you wouldn't know
which was most deserving. But if you have the submissions on an
annual or even a less frequent basis, perhaps every two years or even
every three years, then all those people who would be considering
some kind of memorial would present them to us at one time, we
could review them, we could have a selection committee, we could
then make a final decision on those that are most deserving in our
parks, otherwise we might find that our parks are overgrown with
memorials of various kinds.
And the other -- other concern that I have is that -- is that on this
campus, that we not do anything that would detract from our freedom
Page 80
December 13,2005
memorial that we have already approved here. And -- so I just would
like for the commissioners to understand that I've had that
conversation with staff, and I'm just mentioning it for your
consideration.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think in our initial
discussion, I think we were looking at, it had to pertain to something
in regards to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The Hungarian --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- freedom, right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- freedom fighters, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think if you establish it, that
on this campus that it pertains to some fight for freedom, that because
of the freedom memorial that we're going to place here, that it would
probably kind of enhance the efforts of people worldwide, that -- to
get involved in the fight for freedom and democracy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. There are lots of fights for
freedom though. Remember that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think where you're going is
great, that if there's just a memorial for some -- another memorial, I
think those need to be established in a particular area, okay.
But if it's -- and I think that's a judgment call that needs to be put
before us when somebody makes that application, and we can make
that determination at the time of where it ranks in regards to people's
fighting for independence or fighting for freedom, and I think we can
make that distinction at that point in time. Do you agree with that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I would like to get all of the
submissions at one time, however; in other words, annually we'd get--
or every two years we would get all of the submissions from people
who want to have some sort of a memorial on county-owned land.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then we review them and rank them
Page 81
".~-,-_...."."._._.__..,...."..".,-.-
.~"__u,~_·--·~·
_._,-"..,~._-- .'. ~ "._~.~~,.._~..,.,...._~..---.....-~-""-~'
December 13,2005
and say, we think these are the most deserving, and then make a
decision at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We have a problem if we
ever establish this Hungarian memorial, because there is the citizens
out there that are trying to somewhat get this established for the 50th
anniversary, which was in 1956, so -- October 23, 1956, so they're
looking for something on the 50th anniversary, which will be this
upcoming year in regards to trying to establish that in a park if we can
address it at that point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We could do it, have our first selection
sometime next year --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- you know, and -- if you wanted to do
that, and then just broadcast it.
Now, you understand that there are a lot of causes that involve
everything from racial issues to sexual orientation that are described as
battles for freedom.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand. I think what we're
looking at is issues whereby there was -- people lost their lives over,
okay? I think that's -- and I think where you're going with this, if
there's other issues or other monuments that need to be placed on
county property, that there should be other areas of designation, so __
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we could have -- we could retain
the authority to decide where it would be placed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right. We don't have to be restricted to
a particular area. And we could advertise in advance that every -- let's
say every two years, starting next year, we will accept
recommendations for designs of memorials, and then we write the
criteria for those designs of memorials.
And if you could do that to meet some of the qualifications that
Commissioner Halas has spelled out, then come back to us and then
Page 82
_·>Œ'__'~~,~_..,_...~. '., ._._.",.___~_~..__..~~".._,_~__~..~..."_.,
December 13, 2005
we'll see what we can do. Have the first selection process next year so
that if the Hungarian freedom fighter memorial is deemed acceptable,
that it can be done on the 50th anniversary of that event. So is that
sufficient guidance for you?
MS. PRICE: Yes; yes, it is. I think we know exactly where you
want to go with this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have enough nods here to do
that? You want amotion?
MR. MUDD: The guidance is good. Every two years, we can do
that. Every two years, February or whatever, come back to the Board
of County Commissioners with a list, get specifics about, you know,
with the group, on, you know, what their desire is to place, what staffs
recommendation is to place, and hopefully those will meet with the
criteria.
The only one that I've got that's dangling, and everything's there,
is, I believe you had a petition about the Hungarian monument, and I
believe you kind of pushed that particular gentleman off until criteria
could be designated that would allow him or his organization to place
that particular monument.
So I'm not too sure waiting for a whole year is fair to the
particular petitioner that basically asked at the time that he be allowed
to get things moving in his organization. And I believe we probably
owe it to him to go through that process right now -- not this meeting
-- but right now to basically designate an area, see where, you know,
his organization fits with it, come back to you in February __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Show you --
MR. MUDD: -- with that particular item, because that's the only
one that we've received, and then we'll start two years from this
February with our --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we just say that in February
of next year, we will accept whatever nominations there are and
include that with the evaluation of the Hungarian freedom fighter
Page 83
._-_._.~'.
"-~'-'"'''-''''''''-'-'''''_.'''~'^''-"-''-'-
December 13,2005
memorial, and then make our decisions? That way we won't
discriminate against someone else who might wish to have something.
Would that make sense? Then we start our cycle in February,
then we'll do it every two years after that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing is that there is an
application in regards to the organization and everything, and I
thought that this was well laid out so that we had -- everybody has a
clear understanding of who is -- who wants to get involved in this, and
they have to have a very descriptive portion of what they're going to
put on that site.
MS. PRICE: We've established a set of procedures. We can
work with that particular group to make sure that what they've already
submitted covers everything we need. And perhaps we want to look at
maybe from the beginning of January through end of February as a
time frame to accept these applications every two years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What if somebody comes in tomorrow?
If somebody's already come in?
MR. MUDD: No, they come in, we'll accept them, and we'll
come back to the board in February for a decision we can make at the
last meeting in February for board to decide that, and we can go
through our board procedure issue starting the first part of February
with the applications that we have. We can work through that. That's
easy.
MS. PRICE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Do you need a formal motion
for this?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd just -- yeah, I'd like to firm it up
a little bit just for the procedure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning has something
to say.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 84
_._~~.-
December 13,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve with the guidance
that has been provided?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Motion to approve this
item, and then I think that we can give guidance. You know, included
in my motion is the discussion for staffs guidance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Definitely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And approve this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we're approving this motion with __
but incorporating the guidance that has been provided to staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And it's a motion made by
Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #10G
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID NO. 06-3923 TO
SOUTHEAST CORRECT CRAFT FOR PURCHASE AND
DELIVERY OF A SKI BOAT IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,937-
APPROVED
Page 85
,----
December 13,2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is item lOG, and that's 16 -- used to be 16D6. This particular
item was moved off the consent agenda by Commissioner Coyle.
And it reads -- or it's a recommendation to award bid number
06-3923 to Southeast Correct Craft for purchase and delivery of a ski
boat in the amount of $33,937.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Since I pulled this, I guess I'll tell
you why. I just did not know that we had reached a final decision as
to what services we, the government, would be providing at Sugden
Regional Park, and I am interested in finding out what this water ski
program is all about, how will it be funded and had supported, who
will it serve, and is there a different way to achieve the same goal?
MS. DONNER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Mary Ellen Donner, Assistant Director, Parks and Recreation
Department. Actually we've got a couple of slides on the overhead for
you.
To answer your first question, Commissioner Coyle, it's an all
inclusive program. It's accessible. We have made the opportunity to
provide actual benefits of the direct operation.
And during the budget hearings this was an unfunded request,
which the commission actually approved. So if you'd like to ask __
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's one year?
MS. DONNER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. DONNER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, what we're going to do, every year
we're going to approve this without an understanding of the revenues
we might generate from this?
MS. DONNER: Actually, there's a 65,5- that was budgeted for
this year for capital start-up costs, which is a one-time only
expenditure. That is actually what we're looking at, the boat, at
34,000, approximately.
Page 86
----
December 13,2005
The operating budget is 39,6-, and we are expecting revenues of
37,9-, which is a little bit less than $2,000. And we're expecting this
program to grow over the years, so we're expecting this to be a wash
and! or make revenue for the county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, what is the difference in this cost
and the cost if you were to set up a cable system there?
MS. DONNER: It's a completely different program. This is a
leam-to-sail (sic) program that's targeted towards adults and children
and people with disability.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. That wasn't a sailboat
that we just saw. This is a leam-to-ski program.
MS. DONNER: Ski, ski.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MS. DONNER: Pardon me, ski, ski.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The -- there are lots of parks that don't
have -- that have ski programs that don't have boats, and they have
cables.
MS. DONNER: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'm wondering if you've looked at
that alternative, and will it provide the acceptable level of service at a
lower cost?
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, let me help with that. This is
Marla Ramsey, Administrator for Public Services.
About a year and a half, two years ago, we did look at that cable
system that you're currently talking about. We have representation
from those who are interested in providing that service at Sugden
Regional Park make a presentation to the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Boards.
After that presentation, the recommendation from the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board was not to put that cable system at this
lake for a couple of different reasons, one of which is that it wasn't
totally inclusive. And secondly, that it was not necessarily eye
Page 87
---'.' ......-.._--,~<--.-,... _.~-~-,-'"-'''~.-..,.
- . - ~-.-...~..,..,'... -.po-
December 13,2005
appealing at this particular location.
The cable program in and of itself does limit the sailing
capabilities at that location. And so if you want us to re-Iook at the
cable element, that doesn't necessarily mean it eliminates this either.
We could take that back to Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and
have them re-Iook at it. But their recommendation was, is that the
cable program belongs somewhere maybe in Collier County, but not
at Lake Avalon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, I can understand the
limitation. That is a fairly small area there, but I just wanted to be
assured that you had looked at that.
And I hope that you've done an appropriate marketing analysis
about how many people are going to be signing up for this so that your
income forecasts are reasonably accurate, because I'm not sure I'm
going to vote for a boat and an operator and a liability insurance
associated with that in the future if we're not getting enough
participants and income. So you've answered my questions.
Is there amotion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 88
-_____W··,,··_·"~·M
December 13,2005
MS. DONNER: Thank you.
Item #10H
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR NCH
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM FOR NON-EMERGENCY
AMBULANCE SERVICE AND APPROVE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AND APPROPRIATING THE
$250 ANNUAL RENEWAL FEE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 10H. This item was pulled from the consent agenda by
Commissioner Coletta. It used to be 16F 1. And it reads,
recommendation to approve a certificate of public conveyance and
necessity for NCH Healthcare System for non-emergency ambulance,
and approve a budget amendment recognizing and appropriating the
$250 annual renewal fee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may. The reason I
pulled this is that when this originally came to us about the Naples
Community Hospital having their own non-emergency ambulance
service, I was a little bit distraught about the cost of it. And the reason
I was told is because they needed professional ambulance drivers,
generally ambulance drivers that are employed by the county and
work there on a part-time basis.
And thus the fee for this glorified taxi service is extremely high.
If you look at, on page 7 of the item number, you'll see that it goes all
the way from $500 to $600. I find this disturbing.
I would like us to give consideration. And I'm sure maybe Dan
Summers might be able to shed some more light on it. But I'd like to
give consideration to the fact that we allowed Naples Community
Hospital to make its own determinations and accept the responsibility
Page 89
~~--_.-
December 13, 2005
of what level of competency they need for ambulance drivers. I mean,
this is an outrageous expense just to move somebody from point A to
point B when it's on non-emergency.
Mr. Summers?
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, Dan Summers, Director of
the Bureau of Emergency Services, Emergency Management Director.
And also, let me advise you, I have Chief Jeff Page here from
EMS, and Dave Magnini (phonetic) is also here as a representative for
NCH.
I want to clarify a little bit about the scope of service I think
might help answer your question, Commissioner, and that is that these
organ -- this NCH, in particular, has this opportunity for the transport
where you've referenced this as a taxi service when there is that need
for skilled care but there is not necessarily that need for our -- to tie up
our pre-hospital care, our emergency responders. So it adds a level of
security, if you will, or safety to the emergency response system that
we have for the actual life and death emergencies, the original 911
calls, however, having the opportunity for NCH to have BLS, basic
life support, care, which, again, can still be the administration of
oxygen, as an example, where you want a skilled professional there in
the back of that ambulance, as well as other emergency medical
situations where there's a need for even a higher level of skilled care
between transport.
So there is -- there are other options available to the hospital.
There are other services such as Americare and those type of
organizations that have less skilled, and that's certainly the option of
the facility, it's the option of the patient and their particular physician.
So there are lower priced transportation assets available to any
hospital, but it is their choosing, how they choose to handle that
transport within the network, but it's certainly the physician who is
responsible for that inner-hospital -- or moving that patient from one
facility to another based on need to determine what is the best
Page 90
'·__~_·_._____.n_...._~.._.._,<.,,_
December 13,2005
continuity of care, and NCH has provided that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand, Mr.
Summers. And the reason I have some -- some issue about this is that
I've seen cases before where unions have got together and they made
sure their job base was protected by certain ordinances or state statutes
at the state level.
Does Naples Community Hospital have a representative here I
can address?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, they do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And is -- I'm sorry, the name.
MR. SUMMERS: Dave Magnini is here.
And let me also add, Commissioner, while he's coming forth, is
to tell you that, please understand that 99.9 percent of this is driven by
the state-mandated pre-hospital care protocol, so -- and we are
following that protocol to the letter, just as the hospital has to follow
protocol.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's wonderful. But I mean, if
we didn't follow it, the hospital's obligated to follow it, right?
MR. SUMMERS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're the ones that are taking
the responsibility,
MR. SUMMERS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So my question to you -- first,
sir, can you tell me at what level you work at Naples Community
Hospital?
MR. MAGNINI: I'm Dave Magnini, the manager of ambulance
services to Naples Hospital.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And you're speaking
with the express permission of the management of Naples __
MR. MAGNINI: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Community Hospital?
Would you say that this might be intrusive, this particular
Page 91
",---- .-.. '-'" -',.".,-.-.,,_._,,"~-.
December 13,2005
ordinance that we have together as far as the ability of Naples
Community Hospital to hold down costs, or don't you see it that way?
MR. MAGNINI: As Mr. Summers stated, it's mostly -- it's on a
tiered system, and the state regulates how we go about -- either it's a
BLS transport, advanced life support transport, or if there's not
medical intervention, we'll also use non-emergency transport.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And that decision's made
by you or --
MR. MAGNINI: It's the physician usually that puts down on a
transfer sheet what -- the patient's interventions needed. On an ALS
transport, we'll either use -- we can use oxygen. Medical intervention
also would be a monitor for cardiac care.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So there's nothing in here that
has to do with the actual cost, that when the cost could be less, that
you'll see that it's passed on; is that what you're telling me?
MR. MAGNINI: Absolutely. We make a determination -- if the
patient's being discharged, we use a private company to do that
because it's less expensive, and if the patient has no equipment going
downtown from North Collier or sayan MRI that has no equipment,
we use our own non-emergency people, which is a lot less expensive.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I make a motion for
approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion for approval by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 92
---..,
December 13, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
Item #101
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS DECLARE A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND
AUTHORIZE PAYMENT FOR SPECIFIC INVOICES IN
SUPPORT OF HURRICANE WILMA RECOVERY EFFORTS IN
COLLIER COUNTY - APPROVED; STAFF DIRECTED TO
CONTACT MARCO INN REGARDING FEES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 101. That used to
be 16F9. That item was pulled off the consent agenda by
Commissioner Henning, and it reads: A recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners declare a valid public purpose and
authorize payment for special invoices in support of Hurricane Wilma
recovery efforts in Collier County, and Mr. Michael Smykowski, your
director of office management and budget, will present this particular
item.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Again, for
the record, Michael Smykowski, O&B Director.
You do have in front of you an executive summary requesting
that you declare a valid public purpose and authorize payment for
specific invoices in support of Hurricane Wilma recovery efforts in
Collier County.
Before vendors are line one communication, they provided blast
Page 93
___.·.".··...._._a.~"_ _
December 13,2005
fax services. The Olde Marco Inn, they provided shelter for special
needs clients, TCL Medical Transport, that was for the transport of
these special needs clients to the Marco Inn itself, and Russell's
Clambake provided meals on various days for hurricane response
workers.
These vendors did render this service in good faith under the
adverse conditions, obviously, of the hurricane itself.
The executive summary's documenting the valid public purpose,
and we're looking for the board to authorize -- to declare that valid
public purpose, as well as authorizing the clerk to make payment to
these specific vendors.
The grand total of those four vendors for the services rendered
was $58,852.74. Do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I asked and received more
infonnation on this executive summary than is in your agenda packet.
The communications or blast fax, the only thing, you know, I
have to say about that is, I think there's a great service there, but from
my experience what we have is e-mails and blast faxes. I know my
fax machine at least chewed up a bundle of paper. Could you just
look at and see if there's a better way to do that, to --
MR. SUMMERS: May I comment on that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, thank you, Dan Summers.
The blast fax is something that is a network that we used and really
continue to receive compliments from the business community. There
were a few folks that said, yes, that did put out a lot of paper on their
fax machine.
The other part of that is that in an emergency situation, we need
multiple fonns of communication. The advantage that fax has over
anything else is that fax works off of a conventional telephone line,
Page 94
,~--
.'.~-"-,_..,,._^
December 13,2005
which has a great deal more reliability than the e-mail system or what
we can rely on local media, when we can rely, again, on the broadcast
media and the timeliness associated with it.
We actually send some blast fax information out where we need
information back from the business community. For example, are you
open? Can you fax that back to us?
So that service allows us to instantly hit hundreds of businesses
and organizations within Collier County where we don't have to rely
on our next press conference. The e-mail may be inoperable or you
may not be checking your e-mail at that particular time. The blast fax
is an acceptable FEMA warning and community notification system in
terms of reimbursement. Weare happy to delete anybody off the list
that finds that excessive, but it is a valuable resource for us, and a
traditional form of notification out of emergency management.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And all I'm asking is, you know,
can you take a look at it in the future.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know all the fax machines I've
used, you have to plug it into 110 for it to work. Mine didn't work
when I didn't have power, so maybe I need to take a look at a different
fax machine.
The other issue --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A 12-volt fax machine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A 12-volt fax machine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Twelve volt?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or generator.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, my Internet would
work then, right?
The other thing is, we transported the disabled, the needy to the
hotel, correct?
MR. SUMMERS: That's right.
Page 95
~'->--,_._,--,-
December 13, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what I found was, we are
charged for no shows.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we didn't transport them, I
mean, I just don't understand. We -- yeah, if we didn't transport them,
there's no shows, but why were their rooms held aside?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. Let me qualify that for you a little.
As you know, we had several hundred special needs individuals in the
shelters for a number of day. It was mission critical for the health of
those individuals that we get them into a better location primarily so
that they could bathe, a location where clothes and items of medical
necessity could be properly washed and disinfected.
The hotel environment allowed us to do that. In many cases in
those hotel rooms we had two or three individuals per room, not only
as patients, but even adding additional personnel to the caregiver.
At that very period of time when we discovered -- and the
gracious, gracious hospitality of the inn in terms of opening their
doors and digging in to find out what they could do to help these folks
that had some true medical necessity need, is that we did make a
reservation, if you will, for X number of rooms.
And during that transport period, or as we committed to that
reservation, during that transport period, we actually had some of
those clients that had to be hospitalized, or a couple of clients that, in
fact, were able to have family or friends secure them from the shelter
evacuation.
But we had made that commitment in good faith based on the
very fluid census that we had in the shelter. We were actually gaining
some people later in the process as opposed to losing some people.
So, yes, we may have overestimated by one room, but we made
that commitment to the Marco Inn based on a good faith estimate on a
census that we had that needed to be relocated from the special needs
shelter.
Page 96
...---.......-...........-..'"
.-._".<-~-~----"'-
December 13,2005
And their service is beyond -- exceeded all of our expectations
for supporting these very critically ill individuals.
I might also add, Commissioners, that this type of service
post-event is impossible for us to pre-bid or pre-award. I never know
from one hurricane who's going to have the power, the utilities, the
infrastructure, the roof remaining intact, so it just worked out well that
this site and this organization stepped up to be a community partner,
and I would appreciate your support of their efforts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're quite a good
salesman. I just have questions --
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on these items, that's all.
MR. SUMMERS: Very good, understood. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And after a hurricane event,
mind you, we're charged a resort fee? Did they -- did you question
that and they respond?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I did not give -- specifically request that.
I do know that I go by what is likely that FEMA will reimburse, and
reasonable and customary charges are acceptable, and the fact that I
needed additional generator support, I needed additional manpower
from that hotel far and beyond what would be a typical hotel stay, we
utilized their washers, their dryers, their dishwashers, all of those type
of things. So a supplemental fee for all of the additional taxing, if you
will, that we used at that facility is certainly reasonable and customary
during this disaster period.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We're non-tax exempt,
so -- but a resort fee, I would hope that you would question that before
we pay it.
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, it's supposed to serve a
purpose. This is not a vacation.
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir.
Page 97
._--
December 13,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And $2 for bottled water?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, is -- that, too, is another challenge. But at
$128 or so per facility with -- or per room, the fact that we had
multiple people in the room and the fact that, you know, if I -- I don't
have hospital beds to move those people, and that's what a lot of those
people needed. I'm not in a position to donate FEMA bottled water to
a private entity like that. And during the heat of battle, it's difficult,
and I recognize we'll find any way to do better, but __
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Summers, let me just ask
you this one question.
MR. SUMMERS: But I have to have those services.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you pay $2 for a bottle
of water?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, if I had a family member in that
condition, I would not hesitate to provide whatever reasonable
reimbursement I needed for the caliber of the patients, not evacuees,
patients that we needed to cover at that point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm going to make a
motion to approve, and also in my motion to direct staff to direct the
county manager to talk to the Marco Island Inn for a better
explanation of the charges on the invoices, and in particular the
bottled water and the resort fee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're running into this more and
more often as I go to events with F AC where they have resort fees and
there's no way possible that you're going to be using those resort fees.
This is just another avenue that is open for the business
community to address issues of resort fees saying that you're going to
be using whatever facilities they may have, which may be a workout
Page 98
--_...__.....,."'''----..,.._,-,~.
December 13, 2005
room or a pool, whatever else, and they use that to cover their
problems with the pool or resort areas, such as the workout room and
stuff.
So this is something that's ongoing. It's pretty customary
anymore. And even though those people didn't use that, that's the way
it is. And most hotels will have a bottle of water, and if you decide to
drink that bottle of water, it's going to cost you.
Now, in a situation of -- where we have people that are in need,
special needs, obviously they don't have the ability. They're not
mobile enough to go down and purchase water at a -- at maybe their
commissary, or whatever is there, at a cheaper price, and if they're
thirsty, they're going to use that water, and as soon as you break the
seal on it, it's charged.
And I believe all these charges are able to be charged back to
FEMA and so that it doesn't burden the county. But I understand
where you're coming from, because eventually all taxpayers paid in to
FEMA. But you have to look at the situation, the scenario.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Possibly though -- being that
$2 for a bottle of water is a little excessive, understanding what you
were going through, but you know, this is a learning lesson for us.
And so possibly -- pray to God we never have to worry about this
agaIn.
But if we happen to, and being that they were such a wonderful
hotel and served you well, and if you use them again, you might want
to negotiate with them or any other hotel, that as long as we have the
free FEMA water, we could distribute it to those people with their
approval rather than buy the water, and that would save us some
money.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, just so you know -- and I don't __
Page 99
4__..........._
December 13,2005
and I'm not too sure this item is self-explanatory, and for the folks that
are listening, we had our special needs shelter -- and there's still seven
minutes and this is the last item, so we're doing really good before
lunch.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's not use it all.
MR. MUDD: No, I won't use it all. You have special needs. We
had 160 some odd special needs people the went into Palmetto High
School. We had over 125 caregivers at that the particular facility.
After the hurricane came and went, those people that were able to
return back to their homes did if they were in a condition to take them.
As it drew down, as after the post-hurricane event, you get to __
you get to a point in time where your special needs clients get down to
around 20. Your special caregivers are still up to 125, your high
school needs to open back up again for school. So you're stuck in a
dilemma to, what do you do with the remaining special needs that
either their home isn't fit to live in because the roof doesn't exist, they
don't have someone here to take them back home again, and that's
where we get into a hotel type environment for them. Reduce the
number of Red Cross nurses and doctors that are there __
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nobody's questioning that. It's
just the bill itself.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir; yes, sir. But for the folks that are out
there, just to let them know that we don't put special needs folks in a
hotel to begin with. They're in a shelter, and it's after it starts to ramp
down that you get yourself in this particular instance.
And sir, I will give Marco -- the Marco Inn a call to see if we
can't get this resort fee taken off, and we'll work the bottled water
issue, too. And if I'm unable to get that before the next incident, we'll
get that resolved before we make the contract.
MR. SUMMERS: Just one more time, clarification too.
Remember, we don't warehouse the FEMA water and those types of
things. That's day three, four, five, if we're lucky, we get those
Page 100
.--..,,",
December 13, 2005
resources in. So we did that -- we probably had a day of transition
there where we didn't have bulk distribution of those water resources
available.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is approved unanimously. And I
believe that brings us to the end of the morning session, doesn't it?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am -- yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we're in recess until one o'clock.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're now back in session.
County Manager?
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2005-432: PETITION: V A-2005-AR-8010 JAMES
AND MARGARET FORNEAR, REPRESENTED BY CLAY
BROOKER, ESQUIRE, ARE REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-
FACT FROM SECTION 4.02.03.A OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TO ALLOW FOR A 5.3-FOOT
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED 10-FOOT REAR
YARD (ACCESSORY) SETBACK, AS APPLICABLE TO A
SCREEN ENCLOSURE ON A WATERFRONT LOT, LEAVING A
Page 101
'~----'~'-""'-
_·v.·_______~_ _, ______
December 13,2005
4.7-FOOT REAR YARD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED AT 175 BAYVIEW AVENUE, CONNERS
VANDERBILT BEACH EST. SUBDIVISION, UNIT 1, BLOCK C,
LOT 7, IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED
W /STIPULA TIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is the continuance of this
morning's meeting, and we go into paragraph seven, which is the
Board of Zoning Appeals, and it's -- 7 A's the first item. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members.
It's petition variance 2005-AR-8010, James and Margaret
F ornear, represented by Clay Brooker, Esquire, are requesting an
after-the- fact -- an after-the- fact from section 4. -- I think it's
after-the-fact variance, from section 4.02.03.A of the land
development code to allow for a 5.3-foot encroachment into the
required 10- foot rear yard accessory setback, as applicable to a screen
enclosure on a waterfront lot, leaving a 4.7-foot rear yard.
The subject property is located at 175 Bayview Avenue, Conners
Vanderbilt Beach Established Subdivision, Unit 1, Block C, Lot 7, in
Section 32, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County,
Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all those who plan to give
testimony in this hearing, please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any
-- any ex parte disclosure? We'll start with Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I do not have any ex parte on
this particular item with either the person who is representing the
people that are in violation. The only contact I had was with staff,
asking them some particular questions on it. That's it.
Page 102
,"",-,_..,... -_"_"_._~"--¥".".-.....__.__.,,..~~,.-
---."'>-.,--...-.--
December 13, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I talked to Joe Schmitt and Jim
Mudd on this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have no disclosure for this item.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None for me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we're ready for the
presentation.
MR. BROOKER: For the record, Clay Brooker on behalf ofMr.
and Mrs. Fornear. I'm before you unfortunately on an after-the-fact
variance, and it comes with some displeasure or bad taste in your
mouth right from the beginning, and I'm hopeful that you'll understand
that what we have here before you is a case where Mr. and Mrs.
Fomear had no knowledge of or had no participation or creation in the
violation of the rear yard setback.
The picture I've placed on the screen before you highlighted is
Mr. and Mrs. Fornear's home. From the aerial there you can see the
screen enclosure in the rear yard which abuts the canal. It is that
screen enclosure, that accessory structure, which brings us before you
today.
The code requires a 10- foot rear yard setback for accessory
structures and this -- under these circumstances that rear yard setback
is measured from the sea wall and not from the platted property line.
The platted property line actually extends about nine more feet into
the water.
So unfortunately Mr. and Mrs. Fomear are forced to deal with a
situation that, after living in their home for seven years, they were
notified of this problem, which leads me into a little bit of background.
Mr. and Mrs. Fornear purchased this home in 1996. The home--
they are a successor owner of the home. The home was built and
previously owned by a Mr. Mario Constantini, who subcontracted to
have the screen enclosure built.
Page 103
·""_u,.
December 13, 2005
As I mentioned, Mr. and Mrs. Fornear purchased the home in
August of 1996 and had no knowledge of any issue or problem with
the screen enclosure or the rear yard setback. As a matter of fact, the
county had issued a CO for the home approximately three weeks prior
to the F ornears purchasing the home, which means that the
predecessor ownerlbuilder actually built the home without living in it.
Mr. and Mrs. Fornear purchased, and were the first owners of the
home but had no knowledge of this problem.
I think it's very important, second to the fact that the Fornears are
innocent victims in this -- under these circumstances, it's also
important to note that the house on either side of Mr. and Mrs.
Fomear, those respective owners, have sent in letters of no objection
to this variance request.
They were contacted specifically by me, and they have issued
letters which if not already, I would like to make them a part of the
formal record of these proceedings.
With regard to another aspect of these -- of the reason why I
believe a variance is appropriate under these circumstances, is the fact
that this house backs up on a 100- foot wide canal. This is not a case
where the rear yard setback is going to impact anyone behind the
home.
It's a 100-foot wide buffer, so to speak, between this house and
the house directly to the north or the rear yard behind the Fomears'
home. So I believe that is a mitigating factor that the rear yard
encroachment is not going to impact anyone behind it.
The -- what I'll call the ugly side of this petition is that we were
unable to find any permit for the screen enclosure. Again, Mr. and
Mrs. Fornear had no knowledge of this. I don't believe that means that
a permit wasn't applied for and issued necessarily. All that that means
is that no one can seem to place their hands on it.
In my investigation, I have spoken with Mr. Constantini, the
predecessor ownerlbuilder, and he indicated that he'd subcontracted
Page 104
".."---~_..,_. -
"'_.<-'---~""
'".-........-.-.---, ..-.--....-....-
December 13,2005
out to have the screen enclosure built with a firm out of Fort Myers.
Just so happens that firm's no longer in business. So it's kind of
stacking the chips against Mr. and Mrs. Fornear.
But be that as it may, again, they had no -- no involvement or
creation in this problem, had no knowledge that this screen was, in
fact, encroaching into the rear yard setback, and, in fact, did rely on
the CO issued by the county in July of 1996.
Those are my initial comments and presentation. I hope that the
commission recognizes that the F ornears are the innocent victims here.
They have been living in the home now today, as we sit here, for
over nine years and they are forced to bring this -- come before you
today with some displeasure to them, I might add.
So I hope that the commission sees their plight as an innocent
victim and grants the variance. And I'd be happy to answer any
questions or also reserve some rebuttal after the staff gives its
presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would like to say that I appreciate the
candor of your presentation. Thank you very much.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does staffhave a presentation for us?
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chairman Coyle. Mike Bosi, Zoning
and Land Development Review, and I will be succinct.
Within the staffs evaluation and review of the application, we
were also unable to ever find a permit on record for the screen
enclosure. There was a permit issued for the spa, and it ultimately did
receive a CO in '04, but we've never -- we have not been able to locate
a permit ever being pulled for the screen enclosure.
Staff looks at it basically not at the history, but looks at the land
and looks at the circumstances on the land. We found that there were
no inherent physical conditions that would justify the granting of the
vanance.
And with that, staff found -- arrived at a recommendation of
Page 105
~-~'----,-,.. -'"--'...."'~,-,
-~_._,--"^ --~....~"-~.^.__..,""~-----
December 13, 2005
denial based upon the lack of the physician -- the physical conditions
inherent to the land, but I also -- staff also recognizes that there could
be ameliorating factors that would justify the granting, and that would
be the purview of the board if they saw fit. But from staffs
perspective and staffs point of view, we saw no conditions that would
justify the granting of the variance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commiss -- do we have public
speakers on this item?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When you issued the CO or issued
the permit on the pool and spa, was the screen enclosure built at that
time?
MR. BOSI: The CO for the spa -- there is no -- there's no pool,
but the spa was issued in January of -- January 5th, '05. Staff could
only assume that the screen enclosure was there -- because we had
received a not -- we issued a notice of violation in '03 for the screen
enclosure. So the CO was issued eight years after the building permit
for the spa was issued.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And why was that?
MR. BOSI: Throughout the course of reviewing the records, we
could find no reason as to why there was such a delay between the
building permit being issued and the CO being issued for the spa.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Whose responsibility would that
have been? Wasn't -- at the closing of the home, wouldn't there have
to be everything up to date when -- the transfer of ownership from one
owner to another?
MR. BOSI: I believe -- I'll let Administrator Schmitt answer
that. But I will say that the home -- and the CO for the home was
issued -- was separate from the building permit associated with the
screen enclosure or the spa. But the responsibility of that, I'll defer to
Mr. Schmitt.
Page 106
--..-,^-.-.-.-,. ~''''''"'-<~-~''-''~'--~~-'--'-'
..-...".",-,,-~~-_.~
···__~..~_...'m'__."""_"",_,_~,_""",,,~_,
December 13, 2005
MR. SCHMITT: I know that -- for the record, Joe Schmitt,
Community Development/Environmental Services Division
Administrator. A CO is normally -- it's the responsibility of the
contractor to call in for a final. Oftentimes a permit is pulled, the
required inspections are done, and then the contractor will move on to
the next job and not call for a final. That's one of the follow-ups we
do.
We find a lot of permits that are still open and had not been
called for final CO. But it is the contractor's responsibility to call for
the final CO. Oftentimes the property owner doesn't even know that
there's a -- still an open permit.
In this case, having not done a record search in regards to the
history, I can't tell you, other than the fact that it was probably
recognized, that there was still an open C -- or an open permit on the
spa. The spa was not built in 2005, but the final inspection was finally
called in.
We realized that the final inspection only had to do with the spa,
not the screen, because the CO was issued for the spa itself, not -- the
screen is a separate permit, which we had no record of.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When was the spa built?
MR. SCHMITT: I can't answer that.
Do you know, Mike?
MR. BOSI: The building permit was issued in July 31st of 1996.
With the CO not being -- with the CO not being issued till '04, I
couldn't conclusively state that it was built in '96. But I -- a
reasonable assumption would be granted that the spa was completed in
'96.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You're saying that the
permit for the spa was probably pulled -- or was pulled July 1996?
MR. BOSI: July 31, 1996.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And when did the people
take over ownership of this property?
Page 107
..,~---"..,.,..,.".._,-,._--"....,,,><"...,-.~.
December 13, 2005
MR. BOSI: I believe August 1 st or 2nd of 1996.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: August 1st of 1996?
MR. BOSI: Three days after the building permit was applied for.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So in the course of when the permit
was pulled, which was -- do you know what, the date in July it was
pulled?
MR. BOSI: July 31 st. Mario Constantini pulled the permit for
the spa.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And then August what date
did they take ownership?
MR. BOSE: Second, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's interesting, isn't it?
MR. BOSI: I--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I mean, why would the guy -- the
person that's going to sell the house pull the permit for the spa and a
pool three days before he was going to sell the house?
MR. BOSI: I could offer statements, but they would only
opinions, so I'm not sure, other than he contracted with the purchasing
owners and maybe they wanted a pool or a spa associated with the
home they were buying.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, the setback requirements up
there in the area that we're talking about, those setback requirements
were established back in -- way before 1996, is that correct, the
10-foot setbacks?
MR. BOSI: I believe in 1994 is when the 10- foot was initiated
based upon the sea wall and the height of the adjacent pool deck.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, they're in compliance as far
as if they meet all the elevation requirements and everything else
where the pool and the spa are within the confines -- there's no setback
limit on the pool and spa, is there, or is there?
MR. BOSI: There is. It's 10- foot, and the spa sits 10 feet, five
inches off of the sea wall. It is in compliance with the setback, the
Page 108
'-~~-,->_...."._...,_._......,.".. .""-""_'-
. ......_.,..~.,,--~~~~>-
December 13, 2005
dimensional standards of the rear yard setback.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The pool and spa --
MR. BOSI: No, spa. There's no pool.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The spa is in compliance
with the 10-foot setback; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so what made this out
of conformity -- how did they -- what'd they do, set the pool cage back
farther?
MR. BOSI: The pool cage sits about five feet further to the
north, which would be further to the rear of the subject property, from
property from the edge of the spa.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if they had to reconstruct the
cage, they wouldn't have to do anything as far as addressing the spa,
because you say the spa is in compliance; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct. They would -- they'd have to bring their
screen cage within -- within a couple inches of the edge of their spa,
but they could -- they could do it and still be in compliance with the
dimensional standards.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's kind -- what I find
interesting is that the contractor pulled the permit on the 31 st, and then
they took over ownership. So it's hard for me to believe that they
didn't understand what was going on, because I can't believe that they
would put the spa in and the pool enclosure in at the same time
unstbeknowing (sic) that this was going to take place.
MR. BOSI: That would be a comment I'll reserve for the
applicant, because I have no opinion on that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just have -- I find this to
be somewhat mind boggling that somebody doesn't know that there's
going to be something built there within three days after they take
ownership over, so I'm not sure -- I have some -- I have some
reservations, I guess you'd say.
Page 109
'~-_...._-._,~." ,
"",.~."-_..-~-_..
December 13,2005
So would you consider this a soft denial or would this be a hard
denial?
MR. BOSI: No, I mean, it's soft nor hard. This is -- the criteria, I
would look for variances basically inherent to the land. Those are
absent. And with that I issued -- or I opined that a recommendation of
denial is what staff was putting forward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we can't find any type of permit
at all for the pool cage?
MR. BOSI: I've been unable to locate that record.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we assume then maybe the
permit fell on the floor and it got swept up?
MR. BOSI: I make no assumptions towards that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, the screen enclosure, if
we give the petitioner the benefit of the doubt and it went up at the
earliest possible date, which would have been, I guess, the time of the
spa being approved or shortly afterwards, would that have met the
requirements of the land development code at that time?
MR. BOSI: No, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So if they did get a
permit and properly applied for the permit and turned in the directions
for that permit, they probably would have got refused based upon the
configuration that they were going to submit; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: If they were -- if a permit was issued for the screen
enclosure, it would have had to have met the dimensional standards. It
would have had to have been 10 feet off of the sea wall.
And based upon the configuration that they're seeking the
after-the-fact variance for, that would not have met the standards that
were in place at the time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So obviously if they did get a
permit and the permit was issued, it wasn't issued for this
Page 110
December 13, 2005
configuration?
MR. BOSI: That's correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then the other question would
be, if there was a permit issued and if it was finally -- if they came to
do the CO on it and to do the inspection, at that point in time,
somebody would have caught it and called it for what it was; is that
correct?
MR. BOSI: I would assume so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm a little bit lost on this one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you finished?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead, and thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I notice that it refers to
swimming pool enclosure, but we're not talking about a swimming
pool enclosure on the executive summary . We're talking about a
screen enclosure; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was the screen enclosure in place
before they built the spa?
MR. BOSI: I couldn't make a comment about that because we
have no recognize -- we have no permitting -- we have no permit that
tracks when the screen enclosure would be initiated. We do have --
we did have records that on July 31 st before the current owners closed
on their house, that the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That the spa was put --
MR. BOSI: -- building permit was applied for for the spa.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But yet you spoke in here of, in
1990, when the original -- how do you exactly put that -- when the
original -- okay. The screen enclosure would have met the LDC
requirements in 1990 when the original building permit was issued, so
I began to think that then maybe the screen enclosure was already in
place then when they -- when they pulled the spa permit. Nobody
Page 111
"""--."
--.-,.~_."
December 13, 2005
knows that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought that's what I read in
there, too --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and that's why I asked the
question. And then I thought I must have misread it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nope, you didn't.
MR. BOSI: I would have to ask -- because that related
information relating to the original screen enclosure, that wasn't
contained within my staff report or the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it's right here in the executive
summary, page 3 under Collier County Planning Commission, CCPC
recommendations, the very last sentence. So I found some confusion
there.
And I mean, if the screen enclosure was already there and they
were just pulling a building permit for the spa and the screen enclosure
met LDC requirements in 1990, then you can understand what the
confusion is.
And then when you talk about not being able to find the permit, I
recall just a short time ago, we were discussing somebody in
Goodland who had a property, and code enforcement found that it
didn't meet the requirements and there were no permits, and then they
kind of came down on them, and she wasn't able to rent her property
out, and she had to conform with whatever code enforcement said.
And finally when getting all through it and spending thousands and
thousands and thousands of dollars, they found out, oops, they found
the building permit after the fact, after all, and I would hate to see
something like this happen again.
MR. BOSI: Well, I think what you're referring to was a
statement made by Planning Commissioner Mark Strain that originally
a building permit was issued for the property in 1990. That building
permit was never enacted (sic) upon.
Page 112
---"'I'
December 13,2005
If they would have built this configuration at that time, it would
have met the dimensional standards, because where they were drawing
the -- where they were drawing the setback line from was that
property line out in the middle of the canal. But that prop -- that
building permit expired because they never enacted upon it.
They re-initiated the building permit process in 1996; therefore,
the regulations had shifted and changed. I'm not sure how much
vesting that original building permit would grant to the property
owner. They never enacted upon it. The rules had changed and they
had to re- initiate the building permit process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, when you're talking about
original building permit, are you talking about original building permit
for the spa or for the house for the screen enclosure? Would you tell
me what the original building permit was issued for?
MR. BOSI: Original building permit was issued for a house.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Which wasn't acted upon.
MR. BOSI: It wasn't acted upon.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Until 1996?
MR. BOSI: 1996 they had to reapply for a new building permit
to initiate for the construction of a house, which they followed up with
a building permit then for construction on the spa.
MR. MUDD: There seems to be some confusion. Let me just
interj ect for a second.
And if I could get the -- ask the petitioner if he could come back
up again. We keep talking about 1996 building permit in July and
August.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. MUDD: I believe this was a buyer that was going to -- the
original guy was a developer. I don't believe the house existed at the
time. The purchase -- the couple that purchased the home purchased
the property, and the developer was going to build a house for them,
so he cut all his permits in '96. And you mentioned they moved into
Page 113
December 13,2005
their house since (sic) 1997; is that correct?
MR. BROOKER: Correct.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So that tells me that it took the house
anywhere from six month to eight months to be built, and then they
moved into a brand new house in '97. And probably in February or
March. We don't turn houses around that fast anymore. It takes two
years in Collier County now. But at one time it was about six to eight
months. And that was about the time.
I believe that's exactly what happened.
MR. BROOKER: Maybe I can give you a chronological history,
and hopefully I'm not repetitive. But in 1990 the original building
permit was pulled. Those plans showed a house, a deck, and a pool
actually. The pool was never built. It was a spa that was built instead.
That permit ultimately expired because Mario Constantini, who
was the owner, did not have enough money, or for whatever reason.
We don't know.
In 1993 the permit was reissued. And again, those plans were
basically the same. They showed a deck. They showed a pool. And
at this time remember, the setback is measured from a platted property
line, which extends nine feet into the water. So this deck, this pool,
there is no question of whether it was going to be proper or improper,
valid, legal, whatever.
That permit extended three times, lapsed because Mario
Constantini, for whatever reason, I believe it was lack of funds, did
not start building or start calling in inspections.
1996 the permit is issued again. Now -- the issue here is now the
point of measurement has changed. Whether people caught it,
whether people didn't catch it, I don't know. But that point of
measurement did change from the platted property line, nine feet into
the water, to the sea wall.
Now you have the spa, which was ultimately constructed
compliant with -- outside of that 10- foot rear yard, but the screen
Page 114
~------"..-?"
--.-,.
December 13,2005
enclosure, which was always contemplated, because you had the deck
shown on a plan since 1990, is no longer compliant under those plans.
Still at this point in time, my understanding is neither spa nor
screen are constructed, to answer Commissioner Fiala's question.
Then presumably -- now this is where the Fornears enter the
picture. They purchase this package from Mr. Mario Constantini. The
house, the spa, the screen, the dock in the back, and the canal, all of
that, for a certain number of dollars.
It comes time to close, Mario -- Mr. Constantini, I understand,
was, again, running short on funds. My understanding is that the spa
nor the screen had yet been constructed.
Mr. Constantini approaches the Fornears, says, do you mind
closing a little bit early? Some funds are disbursed, and I can finish up
the spa and the screen, and that explains why the spa permit was
issued so close in time, three days, from the date that the deed was, in
fact, signed or dated.
The Fornears didn't move in at that time. They're living up north,
they're dealing with interior designers, and they're letting Mr.
Constantini finish what he contracted to provide to the F omears,
which include the spa and screen.
As a matter of fact, the closing statement shows that a certain
amount of money was held back in escrow. The Fornears were smart.
They're not going to give you all the money . You're going to
give me what was -- what you showed me, what I bought, and that's
what happened.
Several -- and I don't know exactly when it was that they moved
in, but it was some time period, probably a few months after that
August of 1996 time period that the house was fully completed.
And the CO that we're mentioning, just for clarification purposes,
my understanding is that CO was issued in July of 1996, and it applied
only to the four walls of the house, and not the screen and the spa.
That's my understanding. Whether the screen enclosure subcontractor
Page 115
--"--'""
~"'-"'~~~'-'--'-
December 13,2005
out of Fort Myers took a look at these plans and reached a different
conclusion and thought, oh, well, the deck is shown, I can go ahead
and put up a screen, I don't know, and I don't even want to speculate.
But the evidence before you is still, the Fornears had no knowledge of
any of these problems until seven years later when the county comes
along, does a sweep through the Vanderbilt Beach area, and says, oh,
by the way, your screen is encroaching, and you can imagine what
their reaction was. They had no idea.
And I think -- I hope that chronology answers many of the
questions that have cropped up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only thing that bothers me is
the timeline, July 31 st, when obviously the Fornears were
contemplating buying this piece of property, and obviously they
wanted some additional things added to this.
And I believe that the developer knew that the pool or that the
spa was going to be in compliance but knew that he was going to have
a difficult time in regards to addressing this screen enclosure, so he
went ahead and had the screen enclosure built and figured that, I'm
going to come back and ask for forgiveness.
And on that basis, I'm going to ask that -- I'll make a motion for
denial on this, because I don't see any hardship. And I'll tell you the
reason why is because there's an awful lot of people out there that are
developers and builders that try to live within the bounds of our land
development code and of our growth management plan.
And time and time again we see people that go out there and
construct things of this nature and then come back here for forgiveness
after the fact. And I, myself, am tired of it. I feel that it's an injustice.
And when you say that it does not impact any of the other
people, it impacts all the citizens of Collier County, the people who
try to do the very best in a job.
And I feel that this wasn't a mistake that was made, I think it was
Page 116
._-~,..__.,~ -~"-~~'_-'~"'--'.
December 13, 2005
done -- I think it was done intentionally. And for that, I make a
motion for denial.
MR. BROOKER: And Mr. Chairman, if I may respond very
quickly. You mentioned the developer may have done that. That's
speculation. There's no evidence in the record of that, number one.
Number two, my clients, the petitioners before you, are not the
developer.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, they can go back to the
developer and get restitution on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning is next, but let
me ask a question for clarification of staff. Does anybody know the
current status of this developer in Collier County?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Still in business.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He is?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe so.
MR. BOSI: Staff is unaware of the current registered status of
Mr. Constantini.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any way to find out?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning's looking it
up right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay, good. While he's doing that
then, I'll infringe on his time. We asked staff to take a look at a policy
that would permit us to levy some sort of penalty on developers who
do these things so that innocent homeowners don't get caught in the
middle. Where are we with that?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we're coming back to you in
the next board meeting with a discussion on -- of enforcement
proceedings and how we enforce -- carry out enforcement actions
against the contractors.
But in regards to developing criteria to exempts the property
owner, I know of none, and I really would have to look to legal
counsel, because I didn't realize that was the guidance you were giving
Page 117
December 13,2005
us.
The only one we can cite in any type of notice of violation or any
other activity is the current property owner. That's the only legal
authority I have.
The property owner certainly can register a complaint through
the contractor licensing office to register a complaint against the --
specifically against the contractor, and we will investigate and bring
that to the contractor licensing board. But in regards to some kind of
legal action through land development code, I'm not clear as to what
you're asking.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's sort of like if I've got money in
a bank and the bank gets robbed, I don't go looking to the other bank
depositors to get my money back, okay? I expect somebody to
enforce the law.
And it sure seems to me that it's the appropriate kind of thing to
do, that if we have evidence that a contractor has violated the law, the
contractor should suffer the consequences, not the innocent
homebuyer, and that's very clearly what we discussed at the last
meeting.
MR. SCHMITT: They do, and all I can do is work that through
contracting licensing. That's the only authority I have.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If I may, Marjorie Student-Stirling,
for the record. I believe the property owner could pursue something
through the contractor licensing board and also have a private cause of
action against the contractor for, you know, failing to adhere to county
regulations.
So it would be two avenues of relief, I believe, that the property
owner would have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think they should have as many
as they can get. I think we should be one of them.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Constantini Construction, as of
Page 118
December 13,2005
today, has a contractor's license and has more than 10 employees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But here's the thing.
Commissioner Halas is correct. I believe the contractor knowingly did
not get a screen enclosure permit--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- because the property records
show that he has done it on other properties, get a notice of
commencement for screen enclosures.
The thing is, it's not -- you hire somebody thinking they would do
the right thing. We do it all the time, and now the burden is upon the
property owner.
Is it fair to the property owner that this contractor created this
problem for him? It's not. Then again, it's not government's problem
to fix it. But the victim in this is the present property owner. So
should we assist him of (sic) being a victim and deny the request?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There is a motion by Commissioner
Halas to deny it. There is not a second.
Commissioner Coletta, were you next?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I don't see this thing
as pure black and white. I see a lot of gray area in this situation.
When it comes to variances, it's the slack period we've got to be
able to pick up those imperfections that we have in human nature and
in our own ordinances and rules and regulations.
The only set of rules and regulations that I can think of that stand
-- have stood the test of time without amendments is the Ten
Commandments, and we're not there yet.
And with that in mind, I'm going to make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion for approval by
Page 119
December 13, 2005
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Once again, as I stated in my--
earlier, that this impacts everybody. And I believe in our executive
summary there was somebody that wrote -- said that there was a letter
from the public commenting on the variance request that asked that
the variance against -- of equal enforcement of all regulations of all
properties in all neighborhoods, and I see a set pattern here.
And however you feel there, I feel that the end result is that all
citizens are not being treated equally because of the fact that there's
individuals that go out there and realize that they can come before this
Board of County Commissioners and they won't take a hard line in
regards to when things of this nature occur.
It's pretty obvious to me that it was done because they knew they
weren't in compliance. So it was after the fact. We'll build it, and
then ask for forgiveness, and that's exactly where we're at in this
venue.
And if we continue to send the message out there to go ahead and
violate the laws because we are going to support you on this, I think
it's wrong. I don't think there's any real hardship here as far as
anything for the home. If the spa is in compliance then there's no
reason why this screen enclosure couldn't be in compliance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand exactly where
Commissioner Halas is coming from. I think he's right and he
believes it with all his heart. You can hear his passion, because many
times there's some deceit going on with somebody who tries to
purposely pull the wool over our eyes.
In this case, I don't believe that that's happened, and I think that's
why they've come to the county commission to ask us to rule on this. I
don't believe that they had, you know -- I agree with Commissioner
Henning, if I hire somebody and they're able to build it and they're
Page 120
December 13,2005
able to get approval for it, I would just have to conclude that they had
all of the permits in place.
When I'm moving in, I would have to know that everything was
proper. Why would I ever even guess that maybe somebody wasn't
doing anything properly?
And so I don't believe this is the people's fault. I certainly
understand where Commissioner Halas is coming from. But in this
case I feel that we have to rule for the citizen.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I make mention--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I make mention that all of this
took -- basically took place within a three to four day span. So I
believe that all participants were -- pretty much had an idea what was
transpiring here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. I have to just jump in
here. I forgot to declare that I have no disclosures for this item for ex
parte. Excuse me for doing that so late.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just -- I think we've
discussed this enough.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we have too. I'm going to call --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one last point though. I
would have great satisfaction if the petitioner would consider suing the
developer for the expenses and hardship and pain that he's gone
through, and I would love to see the results of that.
We start going back -- and I mean, there's been an expense of
well over $2,000 spent to get you to this point. I think just to apply
for the variance is $2,000 -- four, excuse me, $4,000, whoa, plus the
attorney fee, plus all the time that's spent on it. I would assume that
there would be a sizable amount of money that somebody could go
for. I'd would love to see that action taken. That's just purely a
Page 121
December 13,2005
suggestion from a nonlegal person. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we -- can we have the contractor
appear before the licensing board, the code enforcement board?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I will ask one of our
investigators -- I will open up a case against this contractor and do an
investigation specifically on this case. And if the investigation
warrants, this contractor will be brought before the contractor
licensing board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if we find sufficient evidence, can
we lodge a complaint or file a complaint against the contractor?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, absolutely. Investigator will do the
investigation, and if warranted, will demand that this contractor appear
before the contractor licensing board, and then that board does have
the authority to levy fines or any other type of -- well, from
admonishment to fine on this contractor. And certainly we will do
that. I did not look up the past history of this contractor in regards to
any previous violations. But if you so wish, I'll come back to the
board with that information as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. SCHMITT: And I could add, if you do approve this though,
I do have to add one stipulation, that a permit will have to be applied
for for the screen enclosure, and to note that it's an after-the- fact
permit, so it will be four times the permitting fee for an after-the-fact
permit for a building permit for this, because it will have to be
inspected and CO'ed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's $16,000?
MR. SCHMITT: No, four times the building permit fee, not the
vanance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Variance.
MR. SCHMITT: For the building permit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this isn't exactly a walk in
the park. I make that part of my motion.
Page 122
December 13, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I ask, why do you need an
after-the-fact permit?
MR. SCHMITT: The pool -- screen is up, there's no record of a
permit. We could find no record of a permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we all know it's there, at
least I know it's there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's that, the pool cage?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I don't -- is it that you
want it inspected to make sure it's structurally --
MR. SCHMITT: I would -- I would guess that the residents
certainly would like to have it inspected to assure that it's in
compliance with the code, at least the code at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, they're not given the
opportunity to ask if it's structurally -- we're saying we're going to
force it. I just don't understand.
MR. SCHMITT: That's your call. If you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see where you're coming from,
Commissioner Henning. We might grant the variance, and the
variance will have no effect because the pool might -- pool screen
could have been done prior to the point that, you know, they're going
to be inspecting it for.
MR. SCHMITT: Let me clarify. The variance is for the land
use. The variance now will allow the encroachment. It has nothing to
do with the building permit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay.
MR. SCHMITT: The building permit is a separate item, and
that's for inspecting --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll get together with Mr.
Schmitt later on and maybe he can explain it to where I understand it.
It's just a curiosity.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I'll add it in there if
it's a point of law that we have to adhere to. I don't want to say
Page 123
December 13, 2005
anybody's completely clear as far as building permits go, because this
could jeopardize the whole project for them.
MR. SCHMITT: I think they're going to have to -- there would
be a building permit required just for any type of closing, resale of a
home or whatever that would be -- to ensure that it's properly
permitted.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
MR. SCHMITT: I suspect that's what led up to all the permits in
the first place is closing --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I -- you're absolutely
correct, Mr. Schmitt. We don't want to place anybody in danger
where if we approved it without necessary inspection and the thing
ever fell down, that we're negligent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion to
approve the variance, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. And I'm voting against it only
because I believe we need to get stronger procedures, and the only
way we can do that is to force homeowners to sue them, because we're
not moving very quickly on getting them set up ourselves. But it
passes 3-2.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It did not -- it's -- does it pass?
MR. MUDD: Yes, it does. It only requires --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. Variance only -- doesn't
require supermajority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's approved with Commissioner
Halas and Commissioner Coyle dissenting for various reasons.
Okay. Let's go to the next item.
Page 124
December 13, 2005
Item #8A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2005-433: RZ-2005-AR-7276:
SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY
TIM HALL, OF TURRELL & ASSOCIATES, INC., IS
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL (A)
ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY
(RSF-4(2.1)) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF
15 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE
DEVELOPED ON THE SUBJECT 7 .29 ACRES FOR A PROJECT
KNOWN AS BRIANA BREEZE, WHICH EQUATES TO A
DENSITY OF 2.1 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRES. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 255 PRICE STREET, IN SECTION
4, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 8A. This
item also requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's RZ-2005-AR-7276, Southern Development Company
represented by Tim Hall of Turrell and Associates, Inc., is requesting
a rezone from the agricultural A zoning district to the residential
single- family RSF -4(2.1) zoning district to allow a maximum of 15
single- family residential dwelling units to be developed on the subj ect
7.29 acres for a proj ect known as Briana Breeze which equates to a
density of 2.1 dwelling units per acre.
The property is located at 255 Price Street in Section 4,
Township 51 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Before we swear everyone in,
County Manager Mudd, could you take off the screen this other
diagram that's still there so that we don't have any confusion?
Page 125
December 13,2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And anyone who plans to provide
testimony in this hearing, please stand and be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good grief.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ex parte disclosure by commissioners.
We'll start this time with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I received some
correspondence from some neighboring property owners, and I think I
received something on this from the county manager.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I also received correspondence
from the county manager and from others, I have received e-mails, I
had meetings, I met with Chris Thornton, Mario Curiale, Tom Szanz,
or Szenz, and Bob and Pat Emerson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I also went to look at the
property twice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have had meetings with the
petitioner and the petitioner's representative, and I've also met with
residents in the area who were opposed to the project. I have received
e-mails, and those are contained in my public records folder for
review for anyone who is interested.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have received
correspondence, e-mails, phone calls from Tom Szenz and Pam Noe,
and I received the petition opposing it signed by 29 people, and talked
to Joe Schmitt and Jim Mudd on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've had numerous correspondence,
Page 126
December 13, 2005
some e-mail, and a petition that was signed by individuals in the
surrounding area, and I've talked with Joe Schmitt on this issue, and
also with the county manager, Jim Mudd.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're ready for the presentation.
MR. THORNTON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Chris Thornton. I'm an attorney with Treiser, Collins, and Vernon.
Today I'm representing Southern Development Company,
Incorporated, and I'm joined today by Mario Curiale, the president of
the development company; I'm also joined by Joss DeLestang with
Gulfshore Engineering. He's the project engineer; and Tim Hall from
Turrell and Associates, who's an environmental consultant on the
proj ect.
Before I get started, I wanted to get into the record. When this
application was submitted, I was not involved. I have gotten Mr.
Curiale to give an affidavit from the application package that says I'm
authorized as his representative, along with Mr. Hall, for the
application. I'm not sure where I should give this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you give it to the court
reporter.
MR. THORNTON: Okay. And I also have -- I know you've
gotten some letters in opposition. We did have a letter that we
received in support of the application. I have one copy for the court
reporter, and I have copies for you as well, if I may approach.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, certainly.
MR. THORNTON: The subject property is located on Price
Street. It's approximately 7.29 acres of vacant agriculturally-zoned
land. The proposal is to rezone. This is a straight rezone and not a
PUD. It's a proposal to rezone this to RSF-4 with a density cap that
would bring the density down to approximately 2.1 units per acres.
Essentially the applicant likes the dimensional requirements of
the RSF -4 district, but due to density constraints, we're bringing the
density down to 2.1 units per acres.
Page 127
W~V_"_·
December 13,2005
I think the most important point that you should take from my
presentation today is that the staff in their reports, in their testimony,
and in their staff reports to the EAC, their staff report to the planning
commission and your executive summary today, the staff continued to
recommend approval of this project.
As your professional staff has found, that the project is consistent
with all the requirements of your growth management plan and that
the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding adjacent uses.
And the reason that this is deemed to be consistent with the GMP
is that they've looked at the GMP and made sure that it met all the
requirements. This is not one of those projects that does not have
concurrency.
The project is so small at 15 units and will have so little traffic
that it is a diminimis impact on the roadway system and is concurrent
and could be built if it were approved.
The reason that it has been found to be compatible with adjacent
uses is that the adjacent uses are residential. This is a residential
street. Although it is zoned ag., it has been developed residentially.
These are single-family homes on that street. That is exactly what the
applicant is proposing to do.
He's proposing to build single-family homes on a single-family
residential street, and that's why your professional staff, which, you
know, you're supposed to be looking at whatever is the competent
substantial evidence to approve or deny a project.
I think the only evidence that you have, if you look at your staff
reports, your testimony, the evidence in the record is, from your staff,
that this project meets all the GMP requirements and it's compatible
with the adjacent uses.
Competent substantial evidence is not an opinion poll or
popularity contest of the neighbors. We know that the neighbors are
in opposition to us. They appeared at all the meetings, and we have
talked with them some.
Page 128
December 13, 2005
There is not anything we can do to this project to make it
acceptable to them. To make it acceptable to them, we could build
two homes, and that is not what this property owner wants to do.
This -- there's been a -- there's two major misconceptions that I'd
like to clear up. One is that this is a rural area, and we're going to
move in and change it to an urban high density setting.
First, your compo plan doesn't designate this area as rural. This is
in the urban services area. Your compo plan guides high intensity,
high density developments towards the urban areas, and that's where
we are.
There are other areas in the county that are conservation and rural
where higher densities are not allowed, but we have chosen a spot that
is in the urban services boundary. We have -- and the base density
there is four units an acre. It comes down to three because of traffic
congestion. We have further voluntarily backed that off from three,
which is the maximum we would be entitled to, to 2.1 units an acre.
So although there are large lots on the street now, the county has
targeted this area as an urban services district for high density and
high intensity projects.
That is supported by -- and I have an exhibit on the wall here. I
picked large projects that are within 2,000 feet of ours as the crow
flies, and I'd like to point those out to you.
Conservatively you're looking at roughly 3,000 single-family
homes in projects that are within 2,000 feet of ours, and that's roughly
half a mile. So to say that this is a rural agricultural area is a falsity.
I'd like to point out a couple of projects for you. The subject
property is here, outlined in blue. As you can see, not very far away --
I think that's around 500 feet -- you have the Wentworth PUD, which
is Terviso (phonetic) Bay project. I believe that's 1,200 units. Just
north of that you have the Trail Acres. This is an RSF -4 subdivision,
platted. It's a pretty old plat. It's got 428 platted lots. We abut the
Tall Oaks Mobile Home Park, which is developed at six mobile homes
Page 129
- .---..---~-
December 13,2005
per acre, roughly 360 mobile homes in there.
Immediately north of Tall Oaks -- and that's the project -- our
project abuts a six unit per acre mobile home park.
Immediately north of that is the Hitching Post mobile park and
travel trailer park. Just to the east of us is the Victoria Falls. I think
that's the Habitat project. They've got 110 units there. Just to the
south of us, there's Eagle Creek with about 470 units. And also to the
south of us is the Lands Ends PUD, with about 725 units. And I'm not
-- you've got Lely, which is also very close, but it's across 41.
The point that I'm trying to make is that anybody that says this is
a rural area is not seeing what this area is going to look like and the
way it's being developed in accordance with your compo plan. These
projects have come in because that's the way growth has been guided
under your compo plan.
We're only following with what the compo plan says to do, and
we're attempting to meet market demand.
The other major misunderstanding there seems to be about the
project is an issue of affordable housing or gap housing or what kind
of neighbors are we bringing in. These are going to be market rate
single- family homes in the range of 1,600 to 2,300 square feet.
I have two elevations here on the board. But basically at this
point we're anticipating that these homes will be in the range of 350-
to $450,000. That all depends on how much it costs us to build the
house, impact fees. The final price hasn't been set.
We're not asking for affordable housing densities. Obviously
we're only asking for 2.1 units an acre. We're not -- we will be -- we
believe we'll be filling one portion of the lack of housing in Collier
County, and that is 350- to $450,000 range. We believe that those
houses are affordable for young professionals. These aren't million
dollar mansions, but they're not -- we're not coming in seeking
affordable housing density credits.
Your executive summary -- as you might have noticed, we did
Page 130
December 13, 2005
get a recommendation of denial from the planning commission. The
staff in the executive summary have extensively and adequately
refuted and rebutted the findings of the planning commission. The
planning commission, in our opinion, was swayed by the popularity
contests of the neighbors and made find -- and decided to recommend
denial.
Your staff, from the beginning, found that in every way we meet
the requirements of the growth management plan.
There has been an issue -- the utilities department let us know
that if we got this project approved -- you know, we're seeking to have
water and sewer for our proj ect. If we get it approved and we bring in
the water, you have an ordinance, a Collier County ordinance, that
says, if you own property and the water line comes down your street
and you're within 200 feet of it, you've got to tap in.
Now -- and what that means is that there's -- according to your
staff, there are approximately 16 property owners who have
improvements on their property on Price Street. It's not all of them.
It's the ones that front on Price Street. They will be obligated, when
the line comes, to tap in.
Our position is that we are certainly willing to participate in an
MSTU, and we'll carry the ball in getting that done if that's what the
residents want; however, this -- and there has been -- we have talked
about, hey, shouldn't we just write a check? But that's a lot of money.
This is a 15-unit project. Other projects have done that before.
Those projects have been more than 100 units. And there is -- this is a
small proj ect though.
So in addition to what we are obligating ourselves to do is work
with the neighbors to create an MSTU, if that's what they would like.
But we are paying the big expense that the MSTU would be created to
pay, which is the expense of running the line down the street. We're
doing that.
The neighbors get the benefit of that without having to come
Page 131
'----.....-...."..
December 13, 2005
out-of-pocket for that. Your staff estimates roughly -- the cost of those
who do have to tap in is roughly $5,000 apiece. That's $3,000 in
impact fees and about $2,000 in tapping fees and costs to dig the line
from the house out to the street, and that's just an average, and that
was provided by Tom Wides in your utilities department.
So our position is that the county ordinance requires it, requires
the neighbors do it. Ifwe were to create an MSTU and share -- and
the people on the other side of Barefoot Williams, the people on the
east side of Barefoot Williams on Price Street, they did -- they got
together, they had an election, voted to tax themselves, created an
MSTU, and they are paying for water and sewer on their tax bills.
When they did that, all the costs were shared by all the residents
equally. What we're proposing to do is, we're going to -- we're going
to bear the main cost of running that line. We're looking -- we're
estimating 100- to 200- to $300,000. That's a lot of money. It
depends on where the line has to come from.
But it's a lot of money. We're paying that. And we feel like the
least that the other -- that the residents could do, if we're going to pay
for that, is to pay their own money that goes to increase the value of
their properties. And we do think that our project will increase the
value of all the properties on the street.
As I said, I've got a project engineer. I specifically would like for
him to discuss with you drainage issues, which was a big concern at
the planning commission and is a big concern of the neighbors. But I
think that in the end, I'd like to preserve an opportunity to rebut, and
let -- Mr. Curiale would like to make a closing statement.
But in the end, I think you'll see that the only substantial
competent evidence that you have will support an approval and not a
denial. If it were a popularity contest, we would lose, but that's not
what it is. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, a number of you have
questions. You want to ask them now, or you want to wait till
Page 132
~'---" '.. _._-=--
December 13,2005
presentations are completed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll hold off.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll hold off.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll hold off on the questions
until we get a complete presentation from everyone.
MR. THORNTON: Joss DeLestang is going to cover drainage
issues. He's the project civil engineer, and he's with Gulfshore
Engineering.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DeLESTANG: Good afternoon. My name is Joss
DeLestang. I am with Gulfshore Engineering, as Chris pointed out,
and I've been in Collier County since 1987. I've been an engineer for
close to 10 years, and I've dealt with quite a few drainage issues. You
can't really be much of a civil engineer down here without having
done that.
But what we want to address here today, what I wanted to give --
if I could give you guys a level of comfort with really, is what we're
planning to do at least conceptually what we're working with for the
property we have. It's about 7.3 acres of land.
And the drainage issue has come up a number of times in talking
to the neighbors because we have -- we have one of two main factors
which usually happens with drainage. One is how high is your
property or, two, how fast does the water leave your property.
Here, essentially, we can do nothing about the latter, you know,
how fast does water leave your property . Water in this neighborhood
is -- tends to stay for a while, you know. We do not have good
drainage, in other words.
And to compound this, we've got a significant part of the site that
is wetland, which means that for all intents and purposes, we have no
storage on this site at all, you know. We have half -- over half the
Page 133
---~.._.
December 13,2005
property is a wetland.
So any drop of water for rainfall purposes -- from an engineering
standpoint, any drop of water falling on the site immediately becomes
runoff and becomes -- and you have to assume that your property and
the neighbor's property plays host to this water, and it -- naturally
because we have the real impact to drainage, the water levels remain
high and we do have flooding conditions.
What I wanted to bring out though is that with the current
proposal, we are going to obviously change this, because we are going
to have to get water management district permit for the site, which
means that we have to make it -- make the site work to district criteria,
which means we are going to berm the perimeter of the site and create
storage with the lake.
In this case we have a lake of rather minimal dimensions, but for
this site it will be adequate. I believe this -- although this is still a
conceptual plan, I think it's probably 95 percent correct, because it's
not a complicated plan.
But at the end of the day, the most important single thing we will
get from this -- from this site versus now, is that we are going to
increase the available storage on the site, because we're going to hold
it within the boundaries of the created system that we have.
And currently -- I think currently we have the site on a 100- year
storm event, 100-year analysis, the site is an exporter of about four
acre feet of water. When we -- 4.7 acre feet of water, I'm sorry.
And so when we are done, we're going to have four acre feet of
water, which means that we are going to be about .7 acre feet to the
good we're going to retain on our site versus what's happening now.
How does it translate into real terms? Well, we're not really
going to -- we can't change the fact that there may be water along the
roadway swale. That's not going to change. A project that size in the
neighborhood, or in that area, which is generally low, but it does mean
that we are going to export less water to the neighbors and, in fact, if
Page 134
--'_""0-'.-
December 13, 2005
there's any failed -- if there's any failed response or result of this
project, it's that there's going to be some -- some, maybe significant,
but maybe some less flooding to the neighbors, both sides.
And this is just simply from a storage standpoint, purely from a
physics and what's available on the site. I mean, we do these analyses
with 25-year storms that you work with the district, and you never
really have a 25-year storm. When you have, it's a 50; when you
don't, it's a 10, you know.
But on average, it just means that we will have on a -- for all
intents and purposes, a better situation on this lot than we have right
now.
I would like to answer any questions if you have them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have one question. I have
many questions, but one question in particular was -- well, you know
what, I'll ask it at the end, too. Just put me back on there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. And Commissioner Coletta,
you want to hold yours till the end?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to hold mine until
after I hear from staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, good. Then let's here
the staffs presentation.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem, and I am a Principal Planner with Zoning and
Development Review.
You have already received copies of the executive summary and
the staff report. Because there is a contentious issue here, you have
the CCPC that has recommended denial and staff still recommending
approval as we did to the CCPC, I think it's important that I go
through that executive summary and try to explain where we differ
Page 135
--.--."'~
December 13,2005
and tell you exactly why staff has the reasons that they do.
And one of the most important issues with this particular project
is the growth management plan. Growth management plan
consistency is what drives rezoning approvals or any kind of
approvals in the county . You have to be consistent with the growth
management plan.
And one of the concepts in the growth management plan that you
need to be particularly cognizant of is the whole idea of the urban
services area. And on page 4 of the executive summary, it goes into
detail to explain what that means, and that means that development is
basically to occur more importantly in areas that the urban services
already exists or can be reasonably extended to.
This particular site is one of those. It is in an urban services area.
There are utilities that can be extended to serve it. The roadways
are not impacted to the extent that would raise traffic issues. More
importantly, the agent and the owner has agreed that he will extend
those services as far as water and sewer to this site. So that furthers the
whole concept of the urban service area of the growth management
plan.
The planning commission noted four different things in the
growth management plan that they believe this particular project was
inconsistent with. Those were objective 1.59, the drainage
subelement, policy 5.12 with the transportation element, and policy
5.4 of the future land use element, along with objective 1.5 of the
capital improvements element.
Beginning on page 3 in the executive summary, staff has
countered those findings and those considerations with the opinion of
staff. We're keeping our original recommendation of approval and
note that for the GMP drainage settlement, the developer will be
required to comply with all applicable water management
requirements of the LDC, thus the LDC is the implementing rules for
the GMP, so this particular petitioner will be consistent with that
Page 136
..,,~..."".~. _~._..,,__._._w_....
December 13,2005
particular sub element.
GMP policy 5.2 of the transportation element, this particular
proj ect and rezoning petition was reviewed by the transportation staff,
and they have determined that it is consistent with 5.1 and further
determine that policy 5.2 is not applicable to this petition.
GMP policy 5.4 deals with compatibility. And this is kind of a
ticklish issue on this particular proj ect because if you read through the
different information that was available, it seemed as though the
neighbors' perception of this area, that it's agricultural. And yes,
indeed, it is zoned agricultural; however, if you look at the
Department of Revenue land -- pardon me -- Department of Revenue
land use codes for the property appraiser's office, most of the area is
recognized as residential in nature; therefore, this gentleman is
proposing residential uses. It would be, in every instance, abutting a
residential use; therefore, in staffs opinion, there is no compatibility
issue. You have similar uses abutting similar uses, so it's compatible
by nature.
Objective 1.5 of the capital improvements plan talks about
concurrency of public facilities. And you would note that it talks
about, it has to be concurrent with the impacts of such development.
Right now as part of zoning there are no impacts. Those impacts
occur as building occurs.
And this particular project, along with every other project, would
have to be compliant before the county would issue any approvals that
would allow vertical construction. So this particular proj ect would, in
fact, be consistent with objective 1.5.
The CCPC also looked at the rezoning findings that staff had
proposed, and they proposed different findings to support their
particular recommendation. Staff does not concur with the findings
they made, and beginning on page 6, we have provided support for the
findings that we originally made in our staff report to the CCPC.
They noted that they believed this would create an isolated
Page 137
,--...-..-,.......--.,---.,. ~_.._--,._.,-
December 13, 2005
district, and staff does not believe that this would create an isolated
district. It's not one unit, or I'm sorry, one lot amongst many. The
gentleman is proposing a subdivision of 15 units, and that's not
necessarily an isolated zoning district. It's unrelated to adjacent and
nearby uses. As noted, the uses nearby are, in fact, residential.
The other finding that was made by the CCPC talked about
changed or changing conditions that make passage of the proposed
amendment necessary. In this particular instance necessary might not
be appropriate as far as determining that the agent is proposing
something that is necessary.
But it seems, perhaps, that it's appropriate rather than necessary
given the fact that this particular site is within the urban boundaries
and it is appropriate to have more intense uses here rather than outside
the urban areas.
The other finding that they made had to do with adverse living
conditions in the neighborhood. Staff does not believe that this
particular project, if approved, would create adverse living conditions,
and, in fact, the way the site plan that was reviewed by the EAC is
proposed, it would put the water, or the preserve area closest to the
home that would be impacted the most. Although that site plan is not
tied with the rezoning, it just gives you some idea that this particular
proj ect should not create adverse impacts to the neighborhood.
Staff has provided to you legal considerations that are
recommended by staff in support of our recommendation of approval.
And if you have any questions, I'd be most happy to try to answer
them, if I may.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have one question for our
staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't adverse impacts a
perception?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, it can be a subjective determination.
Page 138
~~-_.--
December 13,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's perception of whosever
reviewing it or whosever opinion it is?
MS. DESELEM: Obviously, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, so --
MS. DESELEM: It's not measurable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, there's -- it's perception,
perceived. Ones person's view. That was part of the planning
commission's findings?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have a number of questions,
please.
First of all, we've gotten a message here as to how much it would
cost for landowners to hook up to the water system, and I would guess
that this would be very difficult for some of the landowners,
especially, you know, when they weren't looking forward to changing
their community at all.
But one of the things I was most concerned with is, I believe that
there are a couple growers, you know, that have landscape operations
right on that street. And would -- number one, would they have to
also hook up to our county water system? And number two, does that
mean then they can't use well water as they do now to irrigate their
crops, but instead they'll have to use the far more expensive form of
watering system? I have seven questions, but that's one.
MS. DESELEM: Would you like me to--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't have a Christmas tie on. I
don't know if you --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, do you really?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. It's got little boots and little--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
Page 139
December 13,2005
MR. DeLONY: -- red ribbons on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. It's verified. Okay.
MR. DeLONY: I'm allowed to speak today because of this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, then you are.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony with Christmas tie
from the Public Utilities. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Ma'am, what we're speaking to is potable water uses that would
require the interconnect. In other words, for residential use in their
home or in their business that dealt with a potable water need. Those
non-potable needs that they have where they could be -- continue to
use that well, you know, per their permit from South Florida, or
whoever they had that permit from, this would not interfere with that.
Did I answer your question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. That was one of my big
concerns. Thank you very much.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. While I'm here, I'll just wait and
see if you have any other utilities questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that was -- I think you've also
caught one and one, because I wanted to know how much it cost, I
already got that message from County Manager Mudd.
MR. DeLONY: Mrs. Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. DeLONY: May I just embellish upon that a minute?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can even call me Donna.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. What we provided you was our
understanding that the developer was going to contribute all the cost
of the infrastructure associated with bringing those water transmission
mains from the point of interconnection down through those
properties. Had he not agreed to do that, the cost would be much more
significantly higher.
What you're seeing there is our estimate of cost for impact fees
for a three-quarter inch meter, which is the size for a residential
Page 140
..--
December 13,2005
property, and then an estimate of cost for the interconnection from the
transmission main, which will be along the side of the road to that -- to
that residential property, and that would be a service connection.
Those service connection costs run anywhere somewhere between 14
and $15 a run of foot currently. So if your home's 200 feet back, it
would be $200 times that that would be a cost out-of-pocket to that
resident as well as a tapping charge, and of course, the impact fee I
discussed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And one of the reasons I was so
concerned with how much it's going to cost them is, a lot of these
people have lived there for a long, long, long time, and they don't have
a bunch of money. I mean, they have the best of both worlds. They
live on land that you would consider ago It's kind of like living in the
Golden Gate Estates area, big piece of property and a little house on
there, and it might be extremely difficult for them to pay that.
And I'm hoping that if this does pass, the county has some way to
work it out so these people don't lose their home because they have to
pay for a large fee that then would really be very burdensome for
them. We don't -- you know, we don't want to see these people
burdened because somebody else wants to build in their
neighborhood. I think that that would be very unfair.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And now another thing, I
had -- when Mr. Curiale was in my office, he said that he would be
building some gap housing on there, which would be about -- he said
it probably would start around $180,000, I think you said, but then he
would go up into market rate, and he said he would like his kids to live
on the property because he said this would be something he really
wants to do is have all of his children right there together, and then it
would go up into market rate.
And -- but, you know, a long time ago he had said he wanted to
build rental units there for his employees. Now he says, he wants to
Page 141
-~^' ^---"-.-..
December 13,2005
build market rate. I really want to know what exactly we're talking
about.
MS. DESELEM: In this particular instance -- for the record, Kay
Deselem, we're talking about a rezoning, and things about ownership
and rental and how much they are, without some kind of an agreement
through the developer for bonus density or something like that, those
are pretty much beyond the scope of rezoning.
We evaluate the use that's proposed in the zoning district that's
proposed, but what it's ultimately used for, whether somebody, this
gentleman or somebody else --
MR. MUDD: Hey, Kay, why don't we let the petitioner stand up
to that microphone and tell --
MR. CURIALE: Let me answer the question. Mario Curiale.
I'm the developer for the project. Maybe I can answer the question.
When we first talked to you, Donna, it was about a couple years
ago. A couple years ago the property was worth about around -- I
mean 50 percent less than it's worth now, so, therefore, this 187,000
we're talking about two years ago is irrelevant today. So if you double
that up, you're already to the 350- mark. And if we wait much longer,
we're not going to be able to build the 350-more home because each
truckload of fill is, oh, about $300 a truck.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But when you were in my office
with Chris just a short time ago, right --
MR. CURIALE: And I said in your office --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and we were talking about the gap
housing then, right?
MR. CURIALE: No, I'm sorry. I think maybe you
misunderstood that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. CURIALE: Okay. I do not plan to build no gap housing.
I'm planning to build homes in there to -- actually allow my family -- I
got three kids that I want to keep around me, and I got two grandsons I
Page 142
---..--.~._>~_.~-'_...-
December 13,2005
want to keep around my area also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's what you told me, too.
MR. CURIALE: And the rest of the homes will be a market
value based anywhere from the high 300s. That's what I said when I
walked in your office.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. CURIALE: Your perception was made from the earlier
time that you heard the fact that we were going to do like gap housing,
but I never mentioned any gap housing, because I don't even know
what gap housing actually is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I thought -- I thought you
had mentioned a lower price, and I just worked gap housing into the
lower price.
Okay, fine. Thank you very much. I wanted to know that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I want -- can I--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- either -- I want to stay on this,
because I heard the same thing, and I think it was at planning
commission that it was stated that you want to have housing for your
employees.
MR. CURIALE: On the planning commission I testified for the
fact that I'm looking to retain some professional people within the area
and have the house for my managers, which in turn, they're on a
higher range of value, from 40,000 to 50,000. They cannot meet the
guideline of low income housing, so therefore, they're in the price
range of housing.
I never said anything differently. And as far as the manager and
to the -- I will retain some professional people around my area so I'll
be able to utilize them before they all disappear. We're not going to
find anybody to work for us anymore.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's what we're
talking about, gap housing.
Page 143
.~-_...,-- -
December 13,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. CURIALE: And I never mentioned gap housing, Mr.
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's -- we're talking about
the same thing. You can call it anything you want to. Tomato,
tomato, whatever. It's the same thing. Professional housing and gap
housing is the same thing. That's what Commissioner Fiala was trying
to say . You stated --
MR. CURIALE: Well, what's the price of gap housing, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You stated it on the record.
Well, you said just now, 40,000; your managers are making 40- to
50,000.
MR. CURIALE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want to provide housing for
that?
MR. CURIALE: No. For anybody can buy the house to be
staying around here, like your policemen, your nurses, your cops,
where they going to go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you want to provide
for the sheriff's department, too, so that -- what do you start out at, I
think it's 32?
THE BAILIFF: Somewhere around there, 32, 36.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thirty-two.
MR. CURIALE: But with him and his wife, they got about
$70,000. Maybe you could qualify for $300,000 mortgage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what else did you say,
nurses?
MR. CURIALE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I think that's -- I think
they're about $35,000. So if you want to build housing for that, let's
either do a deed restriction or some kind of an agreement with our
affordable housing director, because you're a man of integrity.
Page 144
-'''''--""'
December 13,2005
MR. CURIALE: Right. And I don't think what you're saying
like -- really doesn't clear the air at all, Mr. Henning, okay? What I'm
trying to point out here -- I mean, you try to change one item to
another. This is not an affordable housing. This is not gap housing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we're not saying it is. But
he administers the agreements as far as housing, and that's the person
-- that's how we're going to -- you say you're going to sell it to the
deputy, the nurse.
MR. CURIALE: There will be about five, six homes available
on the market. The rest of them has already been taken already.
Okay, about five or six homes left.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm trying to --
MR. CURIALE: There will be a market price for that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm trying to get you
what you want to do and assist you here. So in order to do that, we
want to make sure it's in writing, because you're representing yourself
of doing this, and we just want to assist you and make sure that it's
represented right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly where I was going
with you.
MR. CURIALE: And I agree with you. I have never deviated
anything I've ever said and spoken in front of this chamber for years.
Whatever I say, I think it sticks like a post stamp on the envelope.
The reason why I'm staying here and I'm trying to do something
realistically to the Board of County Commission, yourself, you should
try to plan ahead for all the young professionals before they leave the
county .
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you're going to do it for --
MR. CURIALE: And I'm going to start. I'm the leader of the
band. I'll be the first guy raising the flag and try to make room for
other people to get into it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're going to make sure that
Page 145
..-.---...
December 13,2005
you do this in the approval, because we have the affordable housing
director here to assist you to provide housing for the manager, the
sheriff, the nurse, the teacher, and so on.
MR. CURIALE: And I will be glad to do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, Mario, that is what
professional or gap housing is is for the professional people like this.
You asked before what the price range is, it's between 150- and
290,000. So, I mean, talking about in that range. But --
MR. CURIALE: Mrs. Fiala, Mrs. Fiala, don't let nobody kid
you. You cannot build a house for $150,000, which is a professional
person that needs a minimum of 2,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet.
If you have a developer comes over here and he tells you he can
build a house for $150,000, he doesn't tell you the truth at all. I sell
building material. I build homes, and I see that every day. So those
prices are no longer there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're talking about 2,000 to 2,500,
but you're building 1,600, so --
MR. CURIALE: No. I said there's some -- start from 1,600
under air. When you put your garage in, they be 2,200 square feet.
The other house will be 2,500 square feet.
And my two kids, they want 3,000 square feet home in there.
And if I can succeed to get a rezone and keeping my kids around here,
which they were born in Collier County, that's what I want to do, and
I'm trying to do the best I can to keep them here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now, what we were talking
about before -- and I realize that this -- and we'll move on to the next
phase, of course -- is when we're talking about this housing, now
you're talking about market rate, so you're not talking gap. Market
rate is different.
With the gap housing, we were going to ask -- I was going to ask
-- I should not include anybody but myself -- that it all be
Page 146
December 13, 2005
homesteaded, owner-occupied, deed restricted to just owner-occupied
homestead.
MR. CURIALE: Yeah, but I have a problem. I don't understand
when you mean gap housing. Where this name come from?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It comes from -- it's housing for
the teachers, the nurses --
MR. CURIALE: And what is the value to this house, Mr.
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Up to 290-.
MR. CURIALE: Two ninety.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It doesn't matter because you're
going to -- you said you're going to build it, so --
MR. CURIALE: Yeah. I can build those homes for whatever is
the price in high 300 marks. That's what I can build over there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So now --
MR. CURIALE: Don't forget, I'm--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what we're talking about is the
high 300 mark. And now are we guaranteed that that's what you're
going to be building there?
MR. CURIALE: Yes. If you see those plans that I have over
there, those plans in there speak for themselves. And the bottom line,
the cost of everything is so escalating right now. Just to bring the
utility itself has got another 2- or $300,000 from point A to point B.
So all of the cost has to be somewhat distributed among the cost
of each home. And this is a major benefit for the neighbors who in
turn, in turn, not only the value of the road will go up in value from
my subdivision taking in because I'm the first guy doing that, I'm also
the first guy that observes all of the cost of utility to bring them in so
they can benefit from.
From Barefoot Williams, all the way up to 41, they form an
association because they want the city water. Now I don't understand
Page 147
December 13,2005
how we have about 10, 15 people here that they do not want city
water.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Curiale, we're carrying on way
more than we need to.
MR. CURIALE: I was answering your question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CURIALE: Is there any more questions while I'm here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I think it's important to
note that this isn't a right. This is something that we have to weigh out
and make the final decision.
And one of the things we're looking at is, what's the public good?
I mean, the public good, yes, you're going to provide some
houses for those people outside of the gap range where there's already
a market for.
You're going to impact the residents of the street with costs that
they never had to incur. And believe me, out there in the Estates, one
of the things we absolutely fear is somebody coming in some day and
telling us that we have to have city water and city sewer. We don't
have a problem in the world. Our wells are checked on a regular
basis. We don't have one well out of sync for what it should be.
There is not a problem. The lots are plenty big to be able to handle
what's taking place, and I've got a feeling the same is true here.
Now, when we talked about other developments going in, they
picked up the cost of this. Why -- where's the public good? All I see
is cost, more cost. I mean, if you came down to my house and you
told me that you were going to run the water line down my street, and
I live on a residential street in the Estates, and I was going to get the
benefit of the line coming right to my house and I only had to pay
about 6- to $8,000 to hook it up, I would tell you you're crazy. Go
away and leave me alone.
I can't see the benefit. Now, you know, forgive me. You're
Page 148
December 13,2005
impacting people in a most negative way that I can see. I don't see
what the positive benefits are. I've been looking for the gap housing.
I've been looking for the gap housing, I've been looking for affordable
housing, and I don't see that.
I see a utility you're offering somebody that doesn't want it and
has no need for it. So you've got to remember at all times when you're
addressing this commission, it's not something we have to do. We
don't -- it's not a right. It's got to be something that we see the greater
benefit to everybody that's out there, not just you and your company.
MR. CURIALE: And I agree with you on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you.
MR. CURIALE: I agree with you on that. But what I'm saying
to myself, I spent over $200,000 to bring the utility in, and you telling
me you ain't going to give me any credit for it, I think something is
wrong.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think--
MR. CURIALE: If you spent $2,000 to run a three-quarter
copper line from your house, from your kitchen sink up to what I
already leave you sump up and the county give you the spread, the
most expensive cost is the fee they got to pay to the county.
Maybe I should absorb the fee for the county charges, the impact
fee, and maybe I should run the copper to the house. If they invited
me for lunch, I may go there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that might not happen, but
you could ask.
MR. CURIALE: I'm not asking, like you said, 9,000, 10,000.
We don't talk about that at all. The most cost is this.
Now, we talking about what it does to the county? Right now the
county only collects around $3,200 in real estate tax on the property.
If I develop that, the county's going to collect -- the tax assessor's
going to collect 40,000 a year, maybe even more than that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, my fellow commissioners
Page 149
December 13,2005
might be impressed with those numbers, but I'm not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concerns on the traffic
impact and staff continues to put in here diminimis. And my concern
is diminimis keeps adding up.
We have a situation of diminimis traffic impacts out in -- out in
the Estates, and, of course, that diminimis now has overwhelmed us.
My concern is, when I look at the possibility of what can be
developed out there, on page 4 of 105, there's a diagram. And I need
to have some direction from staff.
I asked some questions in regards to this RSF -4 designation for
the surrounding area and how this was going to impact 951 and U.S.
41. Are these areas already developed, or are they on the traffic plan?
Have they already been reserved capacity? And can you
enlighten me on this a little bit?
MR. CURIALE: Would you like me to enlighten you, or staff?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I'd like to have staff enlighten
me.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. Let me start
with the first part, the diminimis portion of it.
Essentially anything that's less than one percent of the service
volume of the link that's impacted is considered diminimis. The
closest concurrency segment is U.S. 41, and essentially with the peak
hour/peak direction for this, which is 16 vehicles per hour, one percent
of 3,200, which is the number on 41, is 32. This is about a half a
percent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But--
MR. SCOTT: So by the rules of diminimis, this is diminimis. So
we don't look at any other segments but -- except for the one that's
right out in front.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I know, but what happened is,
when we don't look at this, it ends up biting us.
Page 150
---..--
December 13,2005
MR. SCOTT: Well, you're touching on -- you're -- I mean, you
touched on the Estates with all the diminimis. Obviously when you
put it all together, it's not diminimis, but it's preplatted, and any part of
our concurrency system when we say -- from an aspect of saying, can
I stop a single-family house, I can't do that based on even through
DCA and how the process goes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But my question is, if you look at
-- I don't know if you have access to it -- I can tear it out of the book
and you can put it on the overhead. Maybe that will help you so
people know what we're talking about. Hopefully it will show up.
But anyway, if you look at the areas that are -- have potential
zoning or are already zoned, is that all classified as diminimis, too?
MR. SCOTT: No. And as the applicant was mentioning before,
from what he was pointing at the map, that some of that is zoned out,
like Wentworth and Lands End.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm talking about the stuff that's
RSF -4. Is that built or has that already been reserved in capacity?
That surrounds this whole area here.
MR. SCOTT: I think the portion isn't -- the portion to the north
was a mobile home park, so yeah, that is built. Some of the other
developments he mentioned are in the concurrency system, like
Terviso Bay, Wentworth Estates.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. How about farther to --
well, the diagram that I showed you, it covers obviously a wide area,
the one that I ripped out of my book so I could use that for discussion
purposes, this covers a wide area.
And so is this traffic considered diminimis? Other than the
PUDs; I understand that. I'm talking about the other zoning. So
where I'm going with this is that in the other areas where this
gentleman is looking to develop his property, there are other pieces of
property that are in this quadrant. Are those properties also going to
be looked at as diminimis?
Page 151
--' .'"'-"'''~.'.".,--~.-.,_..
December 13, 2005
MR. SCOTT: It depends how they come onto this. If it's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if it comes in similar to what
this gentleman -- the zoning that he's requiring today or requesting
today, if other developers get in there and buys this property, is it
going to end up as an impact?
MR. SCOTT: If it's -- it's essentially small enough pieces that
you're talking about that could be 15, 20 --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. That's diminimis?
MR. SCOTT: -- as each one's -- it could be diminimis. Now,
one of the -- one of the code changes we wanted to make was, if you
were talking about the same developer trying to break it up --
unfortunately if it's a different developer, I'm not sure there's anything
we can do about that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because what ends up here
is, if you end up with all these different pieces of property that are
some day going to be rezoned and it's considered diminimis because
of the fact that you're only looking at maybe anywheres from eight to
15 lots that are divided up in the segments of property that some day
may be up for sale, I have a real problem with that because the overall
impact is that all of this diminimis adds up to be -- it could end up to
be 10 percent of the traffic volume.
MR. SCOTT: It would be more than one percent, yes, it can.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. So where -- how do we
catch this diminimis? We don't catch this diminimis traffic.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas, let me jump
in. That RSF-4, that's already Trail Acres. That's what you were
asking, what is that? I just -- I thought I'd answer that question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And is that developed now?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's stuff that's been there
for years?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. That's low income housing
Page 152
~---'~ -,-,,,,-_.,._.",-,-
December 13,2005
over there.
MR. THORNTON: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's deal with -- yeah. I think I know
what you're going to say. You don't reach concurrency decisions at
rezoning, right?
MR. THORNTON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. THORNTON: I was going to say that -- in response to Mr.
Halas's questions and comments, that's the way your system is set up.
Your system is set up in a way to allow really small projects to keep
on going. You catch these big ones, and they can't go until
concurrency is met. But all of these little -- this is 15 houses. This
one has not -- this one is designed to be let through your system.
That's what the compo plan says.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But Commissioner Halas's question
really goes to a larger point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bigger picture.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it is the same answer. All of these
little diminimis developments, even individual homes, ultimately
create an impact on the roads that is noticeable and is measurable, and
our concurrency system catches that. And at the point when our
concurrency -- our roads begin to fail the levels of service, then no
more construction can be done except the diminimis, and then I think
that can continue up until 110 percent of the capacity --
MR. SCOTT: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- of the roads, and then we probably
would establish a moratorium.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it would be caught, Commissioner
Halas, but the concept you're talking about is certainly correct. It just
keeps building.
MR. SCOTT: Obviously I'm talking to, we're looking at this as
Page 153
----.-.~ ------~_._._""'.,...,&'.-
December 13,2005
consistency, not the concurrency. When and if this was accepted, then
the trips would be put in as our other trips are in there, and we're
measuring that against the system, and then somebody else either gets
affected or they get affected depending on how close it gets.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have another question for staff.
Maybe they can't answer this one. Are there properties in this general
area that you feel are near sale or are -- in other words, up for sale in
regards to being redeveloped? Do you have any feeling on that?
MS. DESELEM: I'm not aware personally of anything that's for
sale. The last time I was in the area, I didn't see any for sale signs, but
I wasn't particularly looking for them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I guess where I'm coming
from is, this individual is looking for a rezone, and I just was trying to
get a feel of how much additional property was still out there as
agricultural and, do we -- do we feel that this -- once this property
starts to -- as this developer comes in, do you think the potential is
there for additional properties to fall to the point where there will be
people coming in for a rezone after he ends up putting the utilities
down there?
MS. DESELEM: I could see that possibly occurring, but I don't
have any real knowledge of that or any proposals. We haven't, to my
knowledge, had any preapplication conferences seeking to do
anything like that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Are there properties that are
bigger than this piece of property, do you know of, that are zoned
agricultural at this point?
MS. DESELEM: Looking at the flap we just put on the
overhead, you can see where the property boundaries are, and this
gentleman has combined two different tracts, one five-acre tract and
one roughly two-acre tract to come up with what he has.
I don't see anything along Price that's any larger than that. If you
drop down to the next street to the south, there is one lot that appears
Page 154
December 13, 2005
to be larger, but I don't know what its use is or ownership. I mean, at
this point I really don't know. It would be speculation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You know, that's something
I guess I should have done some research, additional research on my
own, to find out these single lots here, how many are owned by the
same individual to the point where he would -- that individual would
sell out to somebody to develop that area.
MS. DESELEM: Okay. Perhaps I didn't understand your
question. N ow that you say that, I can direct your attention to page 5
of the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
MS. DESELEM: And I believe the one tract that's all in green, it
is the one agricultural use in the area, is owned by one person. If you
see, there's like three different lines through there. I think that's all
owned by one person.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: But I'm not absolutely certain. But anybody
could come in, like this gentleman did, and combine units.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. That's my question.
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are any of the commissioners at
all concerned about the very significant conflict between the position
of the planning commission and the position of the staff?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I am perplexed by that, quite frankly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, when you've got an 8-0 vote,
I don't understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That issue, whatever you -- we do with
that petition, I would like to get that issue resolved, whether it is
Page 155
"----.
December 13,2005
remanding this to the planning commission for another review or
whether it is requesting the planning commission to reply to the staffs
position so that we can have a better understanding of why these two
groups are at odds on a development of this type, because this is
significant. But it doesn't have anything to do, per se, with resolving
this issue, so I'm not going to belabor the point. I just brought it up for
consideration.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have to comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I appreciate the
opportunity. One of the things I never want to see happening is the
staff all of a sudden start building their opinion and their
recommendations upon what they think we might want to hear of the
planning commission. I'd rather them be so far out into the
stratosphere, but I want them to speak their educated opinion on
everything right down the line.
I don't agree with them on everything they bring down, but I
don't want their opinion to ever be so guarded that we're not going to
get a clear reading from them of exactly the way they see it. That's
part of what I want to balance it against.
And I like the planning commission, too, coming back with their
own opinion. They might be at opposite ends of the world, but they're
seeing it from different views, and that's fine. I have no problem with
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the problem is that there's a law to
be applied here. We're supposed to make decisions based upon law,
and if we have two different people interpreting the law in such
greatly different ways, we need to understand why that's happening.
Maybe the law needs to be clarified, maybe we need to take action,
but it certainly creates some concerns in my mind.
But it's not an issue to be resolved here. I just bring it up for your
consideration.
Page 156
"-.-...---..~""" ...,,-,-----.~",.
December 13, 2005
Now let's here the public speakers. We have five?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have five speakers. Harlene
Richardson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Three minutes each. I'd request
that the speakers please not be repetitive. If you -- if somebody has
said what you're -- you intend to say, just please stand up and say I
agree with the previous speaker, and then we can get on with resolving
this issue today.
MS. FILSON: I have seven speakers. They just turned in more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're supposed to register before we
begin the discussion.
MS. FILSON: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: It's up to the board to determine if you want to
accept those two petitions (sic) that just showed up, that just were
handed to Sue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, what's your pleasure?
You want to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want to hear them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that we have rules to follow.
I think you have them in prior to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I would like to hear them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whatever.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll hear them. We're going to keep it
three minutes. And I'm really serious, I don't need to be told seven
times that you don't like it, okay? You could probably have just as
much impact if I ask you to tell me how many of you don't like it and
you raise your hands, we'd know.
Oh, show me your hands. Who does not want this approved,
okay? There you go. Three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11,
Page 157
December 13,2005
12.
Now, who does want to have it approved? Okay.
But nevertheless, we'll start with the first speaker.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Harlene Richardson. And if I
can ask speaker number two to please come up to the dais and be
ready to speak when Mrs. Richardson is done, and that's Bruce
Richardson.
MS. RICHARDSON: I know him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you bring him with you? Is he going
to say the same thing you're going to say?
MS. RICHARDSON: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You haven't told him what to say?
MS. RICHARDSON: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Careful, careful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: State your name for the record.
MS. RICHARDSON: My name is Harlene Richardson. I have
lived in the last house on the west end of Price Street on five acres for
about 28 years. We've watched ground water meander south for all of
those years.
There is another street, Griffin Road, just south with the same
large lots as ours, and there is a 40-plus acre conservation area
contiguous to us to the west. We feel it would be very positive for our
area to maintain this fairly large lightly populated area for water
drainage and to preserve some of our wildlife. We have two
red-shouldered hawks living in our property.
We are considering a petition for estates zoning in the future. We
have several nurseries that have been there many years, and they are
good neighbors.
I'm asking you not to do some things. There are now 19 homes
on the west half mile of Price Street; 15 homes would almost double
that, and it's a very narrow street, and 15 homes are going to generate
Page 158
December 13, 2005
at least 30 cars. Does anybody argue with that? Perhaps more.
Please don't double our density and open the door to more. Don't
crowd our narrow street. Don't force people who are extremely happy
with their lifestyle to pay thousands of dollars for water and sewer.
I've heard nothing about the cost of sewer, but it's there lurking over
us.
Don't increase ground water flow problems by a new road and fill
under 15 houses. Dense building will impact our water problems.
I'm going to close with two little quotes from the newspaper.
Here's Thursday, November 17th. Collier County is looking into an
ordinance that would slow down growth.
Tuesday, November 29. The county's simmering rage against the
growth management law promulgated by the state jumped to a boiling
point recently when commissioners instructed their staff to begin
working on a rate of growth ordinance. If passed, this would restrict
the amount of growth that can occur in Collier each year.
I urge you to help your own goal by voting no to this rezone.
You can slow down growth dramatically by voting no to this rezone.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bruce Richardson. He'll be
followed by Sue Reuter.
MR. RICHARDSON: My name is Bruce Richardson, 274 Price
Street. I think you know the relationship to this lady, and I really dare
not say any more. I only wanted to say--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Smart man.
MR. RICHARDSON: I only wanted to say that we would be
going for estate zoning, somewhat similar to what's in Golden Gate.
And I wanted to point out to you folks that in 1974, if I have my
facts right, Mr. Joe Schloss built several houses out in Golden Gate on
what are now called Castle Drive and Castle Road, and that led, if I
have my facts right, to the commissioners at that time voting to set up
Page 159
December 13, 2005
estate zoning out there.
And I think Price Street is a good candidate for that kind of
zoning, and we would start a petition to strive for estate zoning if this
doesn't pass.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Sue Reuter. She'll be
followed by Pam Noe.
MS. REUTER: I'm Sue Reuter. I live at 265 Price Street,
directly next to this project.
I have a deer farm license. I also raise potbellied pigs, turkeys,
peacocks, chickens, ducks, geese. I have a farm. I have a lot of fruit
trees. I think -- I mean, when they says that this was mostly
residential, we have about three or four nurseries on that road. That is
not residential. They choose to be nursery operators.
I mean, we are definitely a farming -- we have people that have --
are raising the fourth generation of their families on that road. We--
when my daughter was in college, there was -- I think every house on
the road had a horse. But now, of course, all those kids have grown up
and moved away, but we still have some horses on that road.
So I mean, I don't consider it a residential as such. Yes, sir, we
are residents, but we do not -- we also engage in other activities.
And I -- he wants to put a pond in front. I have two ponds on my
property. They still aren't adequate. And I was told many years ago
by Bernie Yokel (phonetic) -- I don't know if any of you remember
Bernie. At that time he was with -- what do you call it out there?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Rookery Bay.
MS. REUTER: Rookery Bay. I can't remember the name of that
even. And that surrounds -- you know, is around -- all around us.
Bernie says, if you don't get involved in the water management now,
you know, you're going to run out of potable water.
And this also was told to me by -- I don't know if any of you
Page 160
~>--_.,.....,._----",-,._._"--"
December 13, 2005
remember George Firestone, our secretary of state in the '80s. George
was quite a friend of mine, and he says, get involved in your potable
water because you will run out of it.
I have a well. I don't want city water. During this last hurricane,
we had water where a lot of places in Naples with city water didn't
have water, or they had to boil their water. I don't want to go through
that. I have three septic tanks on my property. I certainly don't need a
sewer.
You know, this person when he came in, it was going to be
affordable housing. He was going to build housing for his employees.
He has changed that so much since he was before the planning
commission that I don't trust this man as far as I see him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ma'am, your time has expired. Thank
you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Pam Noe. She'll be followed
by Dean Bremerman.
MS. NOE: I'm here again, and I will say I don't want to be here.
Everybody knows I don't want to be here. I took speech in high
school and I probably didn't get an A.
But I'm very -- I'm kind of offended by this gentleman saying
that that last planning commissioner thing was a popularity contest,
because I certainly didn't know not one person on there, I didn't write
one letter to any of those people, and I don't think anybody else in this
room knew one person on there or wrote one letter to those people.
We just came and said what we feel and what we see and what we
know.
This is our neighborhood. This is our people. It's a hard-working
neighborhood. We don't have many people stand up here today to
show up because they're all working. There's people that you could
offer to give them $50,000 cash and they wouldn't come into this room
for some reason. There's people that have to go to work. And, you
know, I think there's people on Price Street that if their arm was cut
Page 161
December 13, 2005
off, they'd go to work.
But this is not a popularity contest. This is about what's right and
wrong. This is a rural area. This is like the Estates. It's the last
couple of streets. There are no more rural places like East Naples, and
I do not understand why the county is pushing this so much.
And they are. They got all the dogs back to come up here and
speak, and everybody knows it. Mr. Schmitt himself is pushing this
really hard. They stand up here, they tell, they talk to each other, they
talk to him, they tell him what to say when he gets up here, and it's
unfair. We don't have that. We don't have -- we don't know the lingo
that they're speaking when they're talking about all these things. I
don't understand what they're saying.
And I think it's unfair that this man keeps coming into our
neighborhood. You know, I can benefit from this. I have 12 and a
half acres on the property -- on Price Street. I have seven and a half
on one side and five on the other.
We've owned the seven and a half for 20 something years; we've
owned the five and a half, the five, for like 16 years.
I can go in and do the same thing. If he's doing it, you're going to
have to let everybody do it, anybody. What is going to happen to this
street if you let everybody with a few acres go in and put 10, 12, 15
houses on this street? I mean, I was thinking, cleaning out my stalls
today, because I am one of the people that has horses.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me guess, you don't like this, right?
MS. NOE: No, I don't like it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. NOE: Nobody else does either though.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dean Bremerman. He'll be
followed by David Smith.
MR. BREMERMAN: I always have a hard time following her.
Thank you for this opportunity to come up here. My name is
Page 162
December 13, 2005
Dean Bremerman. I've lived in this county for 51 years, and I've
owned and lived on Price Street for 23 years and lived there for 15.
I bought there because it was agricultural. I'm a nurseryman. I
own the seven and a half acres, which his water and sewer would go
across, which I believe I would probably be assessed for. That would
be a financial burden for me.
But that's not the real reason I'm against it. I'm against it because
we move there -- we live there because we like the large lots, the
space, the low density. We raised our kids there, and we want to stay
there. I mean, I've lived in Aqua Lane, I've lived in East Naples, and
now I'm on Price Street, and I want to live there because I like the low
density.
You know, I'm all confused. I mean, I hear things from Mr. Hall
today that I haven't heard before. One thing is, there's no agricultural
interest on Price Street. There are lots of agricultural interests on
Price Street. I can name four nurseries right away, and three of them
are on his side of Barefoot Williams. One of them is mine. I own a
seven-and-a-half-acre nursery.
Another thing is, according to your memorandum that the county
gave out, it said that this site plan accompanying this petition depicts
15 lots; however, that plan is conceptual only, which makes me
believe that, why are we talking about 15 homes? If it's conceptually
(sic) only, then, you know, as long as he gets his rezoning, it can be
resold at higher profit.
You know, I'm not really sure if he's going to do this, or if
somebody buys that property after it's been rezoned, what are they
going to do?
Another thing that gets me is, he was talking about building
$200,000 homes. Well, on the Collier County memorandum they sent
out, it said this rezone purpose -- for the purpose of providing housing
targeted towards the owner's employees. It changes from meeting to
meeting, you know. This is an investment for him, but this is our
Page 163
December 13,2005
home, and that's my final point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is David Smith. He'll be
followed by Thomas Szenz.
MR. SMITH: Good afternoon. My name is David Smith. I live
at 260 Price Street. I've lived there for 25 years, and I love it there. It's
my home. I don't want to see it change.
I think my neighbors have pretty much said everything I have to
say. I think Mr. Henning touched upon my thoughts when he said that
this is perceptual. Our perception is that our impact -- the impact on
our neighborhood is going to be negative, and our lifestyle, we'd like
to keep it. It's dwindling. And we'd just like to keep it the way it is.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Thomas Szenz.
MR. SZENZ: Good afternoon. I'm Tom Szenz. I live at 285 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Szenz, could you get closer to that
mike, please?
MR. SZENZ: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. SZENZ: I live at 285 Price Street. As the neighbors have
said, this was targeted for rental homes. Even if they're not going to
be rental homes and he's selling them, you figure there's going to be a
minimum of five people to six people per household. That's 75 to 90
more people on this street. That triples our population.
I mean, all your planning commissioners voted against this.
Quite a few of them said that it was going to be an impact to the
neighborhood, it was going to devastate the neighborhood, it was
going to turn the neighborhood upside down. It will never be the same
if this is passed.
I mean, one of the commissioners also stated, one of the planning
commissioners, that the drainage -- we have -- we're wetlands. We're
Page 164
December 13, 2005
a high risk coastal area.
By putting this development in place, he's going to have to raise
the property at least four feet of fill.
One of your planning commissioners also said that because of
this, it's like putting a log dam in the middle of the street. Nothing's
going to work right, nothing will flow right.
Another one of your planning commissioners also stated, because
of these houses -- and because most of us moved out there because of
the less density, that adversely it's going to reduce our property values.
I mean, people move out to an area because of what the area is.
Who wants to move out there if you're going to have, basically what
it's going to be, a rental development in the middle of the
neighborhood.
I mean, it says right here, when you -- like one of the neighbors
said, it's for his employees, and that's what it's going to be. You know,
and what he says he's going to do is what he's not going to do. I mean,
it's unfortunate.
And like I said, you have a petition in front of you. Ninety-six
percent of the people on the street signed it. We're 100 percent against
it. It's going to financially hurt us all, and it's just not right or even
fair. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a very brief rebuttal
covering anything that hasn't been covered before?
MR. THORNTON: I would like the opportunity to rebut specific
comments, and Mr. Curiale would like the opportunity to make a
closing statement, if that's okay with the chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's keep it brief.
MR. THORNTON: Yes, sir.
I'll cover specific comments from the speakers. As far as sewer
costs, sewer is not going to happen now. We're bringing sewer to our
Page 165
December 13, 2005
project, but the residents will only have to do sewer if and when their
septic tanks fail. So they can keep the septic as long as it continues to
operate in a healthful manner.
Water and flooding. Your staff report and our professional
engineer have told you that the drainage issues will be solved in
permitting, and our experts testified that drainage will be better after
the proj ect is done for the whole area.
Some of them have testified about farming and the agricultural
rural neighborhood. They can still do that on their properties.
Nobody's going to force them to sell their rural properties. And our
property -- our project is residential. They live on these properties.
Ms. Reuter's talking about all her animals. It's a residential property;
she lives there.
As far as, Mr. Curiale did buy ago property. You should keep in
mind that people aren't entitled to -- the zoning does not stay frozen in
time forever. Nobody's entitled to always keep the zoning that they
have. Ag. is basically a holding pattern in Collier County. Originally
the whole county was ago And as it grows and as you create growth
management plans to direct growth, the ago gets converted to more
high intensity zonings, and that's what's happening here.
What you're supposed to be doing is looking for competent
substantial evidence to make a decision. I believe that the only
evidence that you have is from your staff and from our expert witness.
You do have a lot of lay testimony from people that don't want it.
And it was funny that you asked us to raise our hands because --
and I have a law review article that specifically talks about, that's not
how -- and I know it was just in jest. But government is not supposed
to be by a show of hands or by a popularity contest. It's supposed to
be based upon the evidence.
Mr. Curiale would like the opportunity to make a closing
statement. Thank you for your time.
MR. CURIALE: Mr. Commissioner, before I would like to do
Page 166
December 13,2005
the closing, I would like to answer one question to Mr. Halas.
As soon as I find out I was going to do this proj ect, I did
canvassing, a few people, our neighbors, to acquire additional
property. As soon as I find out I had the first plan in place, all of a
sudden, every time I talk to them, the price escalated, escalated;
escalated to the point that you cannot buy it anymore.
So the bottom line here is, I did all of the things that you were
thinking about saying, and I already did that, but the price is so out of
reach right now that you cannot combine two properties together. But
I would like to close this.
Commissioner, first of all I would like to thank my staff and the
county staff for working very diligently on this rezone by
implementing all rules and regulations of the land development code
of Collier County.
Commissioners, a lot of time has been -- and resource has been
spent for this development and affordable housing. But at the same
time, we have forgotten to provide the middle range price home for
our professional people of Collier County, such as firemen, nurses,
teachers, and also policemen for that matter.
These 15 homes will be the beginning trend for our professionals,
and I hope that more developers will come forward and produce this
middle 300,000 range housing for our professionals before we -- we
will lose all of them to other counties, such as Lee County and
Charlotte County.
Commissioner, I would like to conclude this presentation by
saying that, let's put all the critics and the neighbors, and myself for
that matter, and let your self judgment count. After all, we are elected
officials and you should not make a decision by complaints from the
neighbors or other people.
Use this rezone as an example. If this rezone is an asset for
Collier County, if you feel that that is, then vote yes. If this rezone is
not an asset for Collier County, vote no. Either way, I will respect
Page 167
December 13,2005
your decision.
Thank you very much. If there's any questions, I'll be glad to
answer you guys.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have questions from
Commissioner Fiala. Do you have questions of Mr. Curiale?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I wanted to respond to
something you had said before when you were talking about the
difference from staff and from planning commission, and I think one
of the big differences was the interpretation of compatible. Staff felt
that 15 houses, because they're residential, would be compatible with
the neighborhood, and I believe I interpreted planning commission to
say that those houses that are already in the neighborhood are on very
large lots; whereas, you would have 15 houses clustered on one lot,
and that would make it not compatible because the rest of the
community is basically -- basically ag., and that's their lifestyle, just
like in the Golden Gate Estates area.
And the second thing I wanted to say is, I have a real problem
with the cost for hook-ups for these people who would then have to do
mandatory hook up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, I think, was
next, and then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because of the fact that you -- that
you're going to take on the responsibility of bringing in water and
sewer -- and I believe you said that it was a price range, cost to you of
around $200,000?
MR. CURIALE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When you initially bought this
property, did you realize the undertaking that you were taking on?
MR. CURIALE: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so is that where the
conflict came into being as far as the price of the homes, what you're
going to have to charge for them?
Page 168
December 13,2005
MR. CURIALE: Well, that's not really the conflict. That was
already put in place at the time. And what happens, since the price of
real estate across Collier County escalated tremendously in the past
year and a half, that we don't have to be a scientist to figure out what
everything costs.
As far as the utilities I still stay behind what I said. I'm
responsible and I will supply utilities for this project. Whatever it
costs to be, that will be my cost.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But my question is, is because of
the fact that you realize that the utility cost was going to be $200,000,
when your earlier conversations with the commissioner in that district
led her to believe that the cost of these homes are going to be
somewhat lower to really meet the professional housing, this is what's
driven the cost up?
MR. CURIALE: No. What has driven the cost up is the cost
overall of the construction industries. I mean, if you guys read
newspaper or Wall Street Journal or you look at any kind of a
commodity market --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I read that.
MR. CURIALE: It went up about 35 to 40 percent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just asking the question in
regards to this one. Did you know that it was going to cost you
$200,000 when you first got into this project, or is this something that
you --
MR. CURIALE: No. I knew it was going to cost that kind of
money for that, yes, for the water system, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My other question, I feel--
how can I put this? I'm concerned in regards to what you're really
going to do. One minute you say that you're going to have this for
your children. Obviously you're building these for your children, so
they're not going to be paying anything for these homes, is that
correct, the homes for your children?
Page 169
-""- .."......_--~-
December 13, 2005
MR. CURIALE: I have three homes already put aside for my
three kids, okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And then you say the rest --
or if some of these others are going to be for your employees, are your
employees going to be purchasing these at the rate that you stated
today?
MR. CURIALE: That's correct, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So how many homes will
actually be left --
MR. CURIALE: Five or six of them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- in inventory? Pardon?
MR. CURIALE: Five or six of them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Five or six will be left in the
inventory to be open on the open market -- sold on the open market?
MR. CURIALE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have one more question,
and then I'm going to close the public hearing. I'm sorry, one more
commissioner asking questions.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I think after this I'll
be ready to make a motion, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I do have a question for the
owner and our staff member.
Sir, what is the -- describe the property to the north of you, of
your property.
MR. CURIALE: To the north is what, Tall Oaks, or the other
side?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. CURIALE: It's Tall Oaks? Tall Oaks, right? Tall Oaks is,
what do you call, it's a mobile home subdivision, which has got four
Page 170
December 13, 2005
units -- four and a half units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let's--
MR. CURIALE: And our property --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- let's talk about the property
that abuts your property to the north.
MR. CURIALE: Okay. That is Tall Oaks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Looking up on the
website, property appraiser's website, it's not a mobile home park.
MR. CURIALE: The says Tall Oaks of Naples. Hillcrest Estates,
that's what it says.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Emerson, Robert and Patricia
Emerson?
MR. CURIALE: No. Bob Emerson is to the east. He's adjacent
to my property, on the right side of my property facing Price Street.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My mistake.
MR. CURIALE: And I canvassed Mr. Emerson--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- can you describe that
piece of property for me?
MR. CURIALE: He's got about around five acres of property,
and he's got a -- what do you call, a garage, and he's got a residential
home. It's very dilapidated, pretty old, and I tried to talk to him several
times --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. CURIALE: -- to see if we could combine the property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You described the property.
That's your description of the property.
MR. CURIALE: Well, it's a vacant -- it's got only two dwellings
in the whole piece of property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's got a garage in there and a
home?
MR. CURIALE: He's got a garage and he's got a home, which is
right next to my property.
Page 171
December 13,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Would you say that's
comparable to what you want to build on your property?
MR. CURIALE: No. I don't see it's comparable what I want to
be on my property. It's residential and I build residential. I don't build
a commercial building on the property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm sorry. You're saying
it's the same as?
MR. CURIALE: If that's residential and I'm putting residential,
what is the difference from one to the next? Because the guy's got
five acres and this one --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm asking the questions, sir.
MR. CURIALE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying it's compatible
to what's next door?
MR. CURIALE: My point of view, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it comparable?
MR. CURIALE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
And Mr. DeLony, I mean, we heard from Mr. Thornton that these
residents won't have to hook up to their sewer until their septic tank
gives out. And if I remember our ordinance, what it states, Mr.
DeLony, and please help me, that if it runs in -- water/sewer runs in
front of your property, you shall hook up to it.
MR. DeLONY: I'd like to defer to David Weigel or a member of
the County Attorney's Office that might want to speak to that item,
because we have a further refinement of that in terms of the state laws
that support that ordinance that state -- that puts a caveat that we've
stated already that on the sewer side, it only would apply when that
sewer system or that septic system, rather, has failed. But with the
water, there's no question that that is exactly what the ordinance says
and that's exactly what the ordinance describes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. One does and one is
Page 1 72
December 13, 2005
discretionary?
MR. DeLONY: Not necessarily discretionary, upon failure of
the existing septic system. So in the case -- if, let's say, the owner had
an expansion to their home that would require the septic system be
expanded or it was failing, at that time there would probably be, my
understand of the ordinance -- unless David can help me otherwise --
it would be a forced interconnection at that time.
David, is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, Jim, I think you're correct.
MR. DeLONY: Does that answer your question, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We all right?
All right. I'm closing the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to make a motion.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. For the record, Marjorie
Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. I just want to remind the
commission that on Exhibit A of the staff report, are the code criteria
for your decision-making process based upon the competent
substantial evidence that you've heard here today.
I also want to remind the board that under City of Naples versus
Central Plaza case, the board's confined to utilizing these criteria as to
whether or not to grant or deny this petition.
I would ask the motion maker to state the reason or reasons in the
criteria as a reason for their motion. And if anyone opposes the
motion, I would also ask them to enunciate a reason or reasons in
utilizing this criteria for their vote.
And also, I know there's been discussion about compatibility, and
if that comes up, I'd just like a clarification if that means whether the
prop -- goes to criteria 14, as to whether the proposed change is out of
scale with the needs of the neighborhood and if that's what you all
Page 173
December 13,2005
mean when you talk about compatibility. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
MR. CURIALE: Mr. Chairman, can I say one single word, if
possible?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. We've closed the public hearing.
MR. MUDD: The hearing's over.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning was in the
process of making a motion, and the motion is going to get made one
way or the other.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm going to make a
motion to deny based upon the growth management plan policy 5.4
with the findings in 14, also the financial burden of the neighbors,
which is not a part of the criteria, but also it should be a consideration
under rezoning, the financial burden.
And Margie, is that the 14 then on page -- that you were talking
about?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. I'll read criterion 14.
Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the
neighborhood or the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a second by Commissioner
Coletta.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question -- yes, I had a light
on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question -- I'll ask Joe Schmitt
this question.
Page 174
December 13, 2005
In regards to the planning commission and the criteria that they
came up with and then reading the information that was put together
in this summary, it seemed to be almost in direct conflict as was
brought up by Commissioner Coyle.
So why are we so far apart between two entities when -- you
know, I appreciate everything that the planning commission does. I
think they do an outstanding job, and I think your staff does a good
job. But my concerns are, why are we so far apart here?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I cannot answer why the
planning commission decided what they did. My staff evaluates based
on the criteria as defined in the land development code and the growth
management plan.
Because of the unanimous vote, I directed my staff to ensure that
they clearly articulate each of the findings for the planning
commission, as was done in the staff report, and clearly define why
staff differs. We owed that to you as the decisions makers.
The planning commission, I cannot answer why they specifically
cited the criteria. That was the vote; that was the criteria they cited,
and our evaluation was directly contrary to what they decided. So I
felt it was in our best interest, certainly in your best, to know in this
case -- and this planning commission does a great job. In this case,
this is one of the few --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not going to solve this problem
until we get you and the planning commission together, which is why
I suggested that we try to address it after the --
MR. SCHMITT: And that may be a way to solve this, just
remand it back to the planning commission and have it vetted to the
planning commission again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's too late for that now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My other question -- I forget it. I'll
just go at this point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. All in favor of the motion,
Page 175
December 13,2005
please signify --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before we vote let's go ahead
and vote, but I do have a -- I can say it now. I do have a concern
about representation of what something's going to be, and I always
need that comfort level when somebody petitions myself and my
colleagues of representation of what their product or proposal's going
to be. My comfort level is not up there where is it needs to be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand.
Okay. All in favor of the motion for denial, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The denial is unanimous, and
we're going to take a break for you, okay?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We will reconvene in 10 minutes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask one question? What if
somebody goes in and buys some more property up, we're going to go
through this conflict again?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They want to go back. They said
over here, they want to go back and get rezoned.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Remember, you can't talk about this out
of session, but yeah, that's what I think -- what'll happen.
(A brief recess was had.)
Page 176
December 13,2005
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session.
County Manager, where do we go from here?
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2005-68: SUN SETTING CATF; AND ORDINANCE
2005-69: HOUSING COMMISSION ORD. AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTERS 2 AND 42 OF THE CODE OF LAW AND
ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO THE APPOINTMENT,
COMPOSITION, FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMISSION AND SUN SETTING
THE CITIZENS ADVISORY TASK FORCE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8B. This item
was continued from the November 29,2005, BCC meeting. It's a
recommendation to approve an ordinance amending chapters 2 and 42
of the codes of laws and ordinances pertaining to the appointment,
composition, functions, powers and duties of the Affordable Housing
Commission and sunsetting the Citizens Advisory Task Force. And
Mr. Cormac Giblin will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Cormac.
MR. GIBLIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name's Cormac Giblin. I'm your Housing and Grants Manager in
the Operational Support and Housing Department.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's a good presentation, Cormac. Thank
you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well done.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this was at direction of the board to
Page 1 77
.~.,~._._~.,",.
December 13,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- sunset one in the process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I think it would be appropriate
just to read the title of this thing so that the public understands what it
is we're doing. Just be brief and then we'll go ahead.
There was a second by Commissioner Fiala, if I remember
correctly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. FILSON: And Mr. Chairman, if I may interject, we have
one speaker as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but he's decided he doesn't want to
speak. He's waived.
MS. FILSON: Are you waiving, sir?
MR. CECIL: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: Okay. It was Jeff Cecil, for the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: See, he's very cooperative.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No wonder he gets ahead.
MR. MUDD: Go, ahead, Cormac.
MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Commissioners, this one item really has
two companion ordinances attached to it. One of them will sunset
your Citizens Advisory Task Force, which was created to provide
oversight to county staff in the implementation and disbursement of
small cities CDBG grand funds received competitively from the State
of Florida.
A companion ordinance amends the Affordable Housing
Commission ordinance to -- amending the make-up, the composition,
the appointment of members, and also adding the oversight of the
federal grants CDBG entitlement programs to the powers of that
commISSIon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a -- have a -- we don't
have any public speakers on this item?
Page 178
December 13,2005
MS. FILSON: No, sir, so you can close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Public hearing is now closed.
And we have a motion by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Fiala for approval.
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: Did you have something?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Just a clarification, that that's
approval of the amendments to both ordinances, is that correct?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's exactly what it is, okay.
Thank you very much.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2005-70: AMENDING THE STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (S.H.I.P.) DOWN PAYMENT AND
CLOSING COST ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR FIRST TIME
HOMEBUYERS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8C. This item
was continued from the November 29,2005, BCC meeting. It's a
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 the first-time
homebuyer. And again, Cormac Giblin will present.
MR. GIBLIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Again, for the
Page 179
December 13,2005
record, Cormac Giblin, your Housing and Grants Manager.
What we have before you today is an amendment to the S.H.I.P.
program raising the down payment assistance maximum amount from
__ right now we have a maximum of up to $15,000 per unit. This
request will raise that to a maximum of $50,000 per unit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are two public speakers, by the
way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Giblin, would the people
that apply for this, would they still be eligible for impact fee deferrals?
MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir, yes, sir. We have the county-wide
impact fee deferral program, that if you're building a new home and
you meet the eligibility criteria, which is -- which mirrors the S.H.I.P.
eligibility criteria, you would also receive or be eligible for an impact
fee deferral.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would that also apply to impact
fee waivers?
MR. GIBLIN: We do not issue impact fee waivers in Collier
County .
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, okay. And the deferral is
a new program?
MR. GIBLIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- so it could be up to
$70,000 of -- to get somebody in a -- in a home, if they build a new
home?
MR. GIBLIN: Combining the two programs, it could receive a
maximum subsidy from all sources of up to around that amount.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, what about if we have
somebody that has built entry -- affordable housing in their
community, could they -- they wouldn't be able to apply for the
50,000; it would just be the person trying to get into the home?
Page 180
December 13, 2005
MR. GIBLIN: Correct. Our assistance goes directly to the
homebuyer and not to the developer, if that's what your question is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, yeah.
MR. GIBLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- and they'd have to apply
to the -- you know, their salaries and what the price is of the home?
Like let's say if it's low cost housing, I think the maximum limit is
150,000 for that?
MR. GIBLIN: The S.H.J.P. ordinance has a maximum purchase
price of $256,000 a house. Anyone who participates must also be low
income, which is capped at 80 percent of the county's median income.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. GIBLIN: So in mortgage qualification terms, a family of
four has a maximum income level of about $56,000. They can go to
the bank and qualify for about 150-, $165,000 mortgage.
Now, if the house costs more than that, that's where our programs
come in to fill that gap.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's for low income?
MR. GIBLIN: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they could qualify up to
256,000?
MR. GIBLIN: Not saying that's what they can qualify for.
That's the maximum that the program will allow.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the house?
MR. GIBLIN: For the house, and the land combined.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, that's not too far off
from what I paid for my house just in 2001 with $20,000 down.
MR. GIBLIN: Yes. The maximum purchase price limit is set by
the state. It's set at up to a maximum of 90 percent of an area's median
home price. In Collier County we've held it artificially lower than that
at around the $256,000 range because 90 percent of our average
purchase price would be significantly more, and then you're not in the
Page 181
December 13,2005
realm of what people at this income can qualify for mortgage-wise.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could somebody qualify for a
$500,000 house?
MR. GIBLIN: At these incomes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Under this program?
MR. GIBLIN: I don't see how that -- unless they came in with 3-
or $400,000 of extra subsidy from another source. But no, right now
the maximum purchase price is $254,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. The maximum -- no
matter what your income is, income qualification is, the maximum the
house can cost is 256,000?
MR. GIBLIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, what do you mean by the
maximum the house can cost? Is that the maximum sales price of the
house?
MR. GIBLIN: That is the sales price, including the land and the
house, the home.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if someone were qualified for a
$206,000 home, I mean they had enough income to pay the mortgage
and taxes and insurance on a $206,000 home, does that mean that
you're giving them an additional $50,000 under this program so that
they can now buy a $256,000 home?
MR. GIBLIN: No, sir. It means that whatever they can qualify
for and whatever the market -- whatever purchase price they find a
home for, there is a gap there. And what this amendment will do is
allow us to assist that homeowner with up to $50,000 to close that gap.
Some people they require only $10,000 to close the gap between what
they can afford and what the purchase price is. Some people may
requIre more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's do it a different way. If I
qualify for a $156,000 home, can I really buy a $206,000 home and
Page 182
December 13,2005
use the $50,000 assistance to close the gap?
MR. GIBLIN: If you can find one, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, it seems to me that when
you do that, you are decreasing the number of people you can serve
with this program because there's a finite amount of money available.
You can serve more people by spreading, let's say, $20,000 around
than you can serve if you spend -- give each person, or a lot of people
$50,000. Now, how do you rationalize that?
MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Commissioner, that is the way the program
has run for the last 10 years is -- the philosophy here is to slice the
bologna very thin and assist as many people as possible with a finite
amount of grant funds.
What's happened is that the program currently has a $10,000
maximum of down payment assistance. What's happened is that the
market in Collier County has escalated so rapidly that applicants of the
program have fallen because $10,000 is no longer enough to bridge
that gap between what a low-income person can qualify for and what
they can find in the market.
So actually participation in the program has begun declining at a
rapid rate because the market conditions have outpaced our ability to
meet that gap.
So we believe that by giving the flexibility to go up to $50,000
per home or per buyer, that participation in the program will actually
increase rather than decrease.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many buyers can you assist if each
of them gets $50,000?
MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Again, not -- we're not saying that we're
going to give 50 to everyone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand.
MR. GIBLIN: We're only giving what you need.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm looking at the parameters, okay?
MR. GIBLIN: Sure.
Page 183
December 13, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Tell me how many you could -- you
could handle if you gave 50,000 to each applicant.
MR. GIBLIN: We could handle about 80 homes per year at
$50,000 each.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, are you -- do you think that,
perhaps, you might be overreacting to go from 15,000 to 50,000 all in
one change in one year, taking into consideration that we have just
approved this one calendar year 2,600 affordable housing units that we
hope will be built next year -- some of them will be built next year?
Are you really taking into consideration the realities and the
progress that we have made in getting builders to build affordable
housing?
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, what we've done is we've
researched other communities around the entire state. Most every
community has a S.H.J.P. down payment program. The Collier
County -- Collier County has the highest housing market in the State
of Florida. The state of -- the S.H.J.P. program ranges anywhere from
__ the last numbers they had was, the low county in Florida gave an
average $3,100 for down payment assistance. The high county in
Florida did about $35,000 per home.
Those are -- these are 2002 numbers, which are the most
up-to-date ones that the state housing department has. At that time the
low was Collier County and the high was the City of Miami.
Given the escalation in housing prices here and how they have
continued to rise since 2002, we are -- we're comfortable with the
maximum of $50,000 per unit subsidy. Again, realizing that, on the
implementation side, it will be only what is required per buyer.
Probably most of them will be around the 20-, $25,000 range, I would
suspect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So I -- if I were qualified for a
low-income home of let's say, $125,000, I wouldn't apply for a
$50,000 assistance and cut my cost to 75,000?
Page 184
December 13, 2005
MR. GIBLIN: No; no, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I couldn't do that?
MR. GIBLIN: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How do you determine what they get?
MR. GIBLIN: We work with the lenders. They give us their
complete underwriting package. We look at the lending ratios. We
work with the Collier County Loan Consortium and we make -- we
will make a determination case by case on what; household by
household, people can afford on their own.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. GIBLIN: And then the program would come with just what
is needed to close.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So if you determine I can afford a
$125,000 house and I want to buy a $175,000 house, I can get the
$50,000?
MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, a couple questions. So for
individual home builders, like Mario Valle, for instance, who builds
an entry-level home, does he -- is there a way for his purchasers and
his buyers to be acquainted with this amount that is available to them?
I ask that because it seems a lot of people don't realize that that
money is out there. They didn't even realize the 15,000, much less
anything else.
How are we making that known to anybody? It seems that it's
kind of like a closely-held secret right now.
MR. GIBLIN: Well, we meet regularly with local builders, the
banking consortium, the mortgage bankers' association. So we are
networking, I think, to the best of our ability, and we -- in fact,
periodically, we just drive up and down County Road 951 and stop in
at builders --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Throwing $50,000 out the window,
Page 185
.."-"~-""""_...~""~. ....»
December 13,2005
right?
MR. GIBLIN: Promote the program. Housing fairs, yearly
housing fairs. We--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you ever have, just consider
anyway, having maybe a little bit of a workshop -- workshop where
you would invite, say, the executive -- chamber executives and the
EDC, as well as those people that could get the word out, and certainly
the upper echelon from real estate organizations as well as banking
companies, and, you know, even if it's just a couple -- people from
each one and ask them to please get it out through their newsletters,
NABOR and, you know, whatever banking consortium?
Because it seems there's a lot of misinformation or no
information out there, and we're so proud of what we're doing, but the
people don't realize what we're doing, and I'd love to have everybody
know.
That was my first thing. Let's see. But there was another one.
Gone, huh?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll catch it on the next round.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala, just to let you know, on the
advertisement business, we'll do better with the university extension.
University extension, basically on a periodic basis, I believe it's
quarterly, has a -- let me help you figure out how to finance a new
home, okay, to buy your own home, and we -- and that basically gets
publicized all over the community.
I don't believe that people see that advertisement and equate it to,
hey, you know, there could be grant monies or whatever to help you
get a home or get you that start. Some people might just look at that
and say, ah, that's mission impossible. I don't have the time.
I mean, how many times in the mail do you get an advertisement
that says, come on down and get a dinner, and we'll teach you how to
Page 186
December 13,2005
invest for your retirement, you know, that kind of business, and you
go, you know, I really don't have time to go do that, so -- and you just
put it in the trash can. But we'll try to get that out a little bit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I remembered my other question.
One of our own employees last night -- it was kind of after hours, and
I was walking through the hall, and met with somebody. And he was
telling me that his -- he lives in one of the rental units here in East
Naples, and they're converting it now to condo.
And the place is kind of shoddy anyway, and he explained to me
some of the things that were there that shouldn't be, and they're asking
an astronomical figure for this place. And he said, you know, I make
too much money to qualify for any affordable housing. He said, I
don't know what I'm going to do, he said, because I don't have enough
money for a down payment.
Now, in that instance -- and I bet he's just one of many, many,
many. They make a little too much for affordable housing. How can
they qualify for this 50,000 or, you know, somewhere in between the
15- and 50-, to be able to make a down payment on something now?
Maybe one of these condo conversions that might be within that range
or some that are just being built like on Bayshore, for instance, where,
you know, they're pretty nice brand new places, and they're in a good
price range, but they make a little too much money to be considered
low income.
MR. GIBLIN: Well, the state statutes and our ordinances limit
the assistance with S.H.J.P. funds to those at 80 percent or less of
median income; however, we are starting to build this linkage fee trust
fund, and that would be an excellent source of additional down
payments that would not be encumbered by state statute or federal --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't have it yet though. What
about our own employees who are being caught in this condo
conversion business now and who would want to stay here, don't want
to move out; how can we assist them? They come into that gap area.
Page 187
December 13,2005
MR. GIBLIN: Like I said, unfortunately, right now the only
sources of funds we have to administer all come with these state and
federal strings attached that you may only assist low-income
households with them. If they make more than that, certainly the
county or some other funding sources could be tapped into. But what
we have on the table now, we can't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I do have the HR staff taking a
look. And one of the things they brought to me was, down payment
assistance program in the county. And the last time I looked it was
like 5- or $10,000.
And I said, okay. I hear you, but what are the -- what's the
payback for the county? If we're going to give that particular person
that money, are we going to loan it to them, are we going to grant it to
them? If we are, what's their employment contract with Collier
County and things like that? And I've got them going back and taking
a look at that particular item.
But Cormac's right, on the programs that we have right now, you
as a board, me as a county manager, don't have -- don't have the tools,
the dollars in order to help them get to that particular point in time.
And it is -- it is an issue.
I mean, there's a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- person in Mike Smykowski's office that just got
booted out of his apartl11ent, okay. And it just so happens that he
looks like Santa Claus, okay, and now you know exactly who I'm
talking about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: And he's going through that same kind of process.
And it kind of really hits home, because he was in a -- he was in
a rental that was converting to condominiums, and the price was so
that he couldn't -- under the financial situation he's in, couldn't forward
Page 188
December 13,2005
to go do that because it really was higher than he wanted, or they
didn't give him the option -- okay, and I believe that happened to him,
they didn't give him the option, said you'll be out in two weeks
because they sold it out from underneath them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well -- and to investors, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. Right, there we go. And
we have one that comes in and out of here each time and watches this,
and then another one that's working in our maintenance. There have
been a number of people that have approached me, but I don't know
how to help them either because they're our own employees who make
too much money --
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, we recently--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Stop.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, we're way, way off point
here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're right, your right. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's get back to the point.
Commissioner Halas, it was your turn, and you've made a motion
to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I did. Let's get this thing
movIng on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta is the
second.
And Commissioner Henning, do you feel compelled to speak at
this moment?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Cormac, could we use S.H.J.P.
Page 189
December 13,2005
funds for a land trust, affordable housing land trust?
MR. GIBLIN: Yau can use it to assist those buyers in the -- in
the land trust that qualify, but to go out and purchase an entire -- you
could if everyone in the community met the guidelines.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So let's say that this
not- for-profit organization has a pool of 80 people to sign a statement
that they -- they want to form this land trust, that could be an option.
Here's the reason I say that. You said that approximately 80
people you could help under this, if it's maxed out, okay. That's $4.5
million. And if we find 20 acres within the urban area at a price of
$200,000 an acre and has -- can be rezoned or has the zoning of six
units, we can help 120 people get into that product. That's why I was
asking.
But it sounds like it's kind of difficult to make that happen.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, we have other grant sources that
are more -- better to use for land acquisition --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. GIBLIN: -- and for infrastructure. CDBG and home funds
are specifically gears toward those types of activities, whereas, the
S.H.I.P. funds are geared more towards the individual buyer
assistance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. FILSON: Are you ready for the speakers, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Let's call the public speakers.
MS. FILSON: We have two public speakers. Jeff Cecil. He'll be
followed by --
MR. CECIL: Only if you need me.
MS. FILSON: -- followed by Kathy Patterson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just tell us whether or not you support
the action on this.
MR. CECIL: The affordable housing, Commissioners -- Jeff
Cecil, Chair of the Affordable Housing Commission. We do support
Page 190
December 13,2005
this ordinance, or this change in the procedures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kathy Patterson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She's going to oppose it, I'm sure.
MS. PATTERSON: I know. I'm the executive dir -- Kathy
Patterson, Executive Director of the Collier County Housing
Development Corporation, and I support this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
We have a motion by Commissioner Halas for approval, and we
have a second by --
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta. We're going to
close the public hearing. We have to do that.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
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: Okay. We have -- it passes 4-1, with
Commissioner Henning dissenting.
Item #8D
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
Page 191
December 13, 2005
MEDICAL CENTER PUD DOCUMENT AND PUD MASTER
PLAN TO REDUCE THE COMMERCIAL USE OF 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 A
FUTURE BCC MEETING WHEN ADVERTISING
REQUIREMENTS ARE MET - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 8D. This item was continued from the November 15,2005,
BCC meeting, and it was further continued from the November 29,
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-7403, Grand Inn of Naples, Inc., represented by
Michael Fernandez of Planning Development Incorporated requesting
a rezone from the planning 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 square feet, renovate the existing hotel into a condominium
building with 64 residential units and change the name of the PUD.
The property is considered -- 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. And I -- yes, I did say
you had to do swearing and ex parte.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll-- all persons to give
testimony in this petition please stand to be sworn in.
Page 192
December 13,2005
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
And ex parte disclosure. We'll start with Commissioner Halas
this time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I did receive some information via
the Internet, and I believe that was all the information. And that came
in, I think it was yesterday, or early this morning is when it was given
to me, and I did talk to staff on this issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas (sic)?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coletta here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. Correspondence,
and I had a phone call from Michael Fernandez, and I also talked to
Joe Schmitt and Jim Mudd on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have had discussion with Mr.
Fernandez. I have e-mails and correspondence concerning this issue,
and that is it.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've spoken with members --
different members of staff and -- I guess you're considered staff, right,
Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Had a meeting with Mr.
Fernandez, and I've had correspondence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had correspondence from
Terry (sic) Fernandez.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's start with the presentation,
Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Michael
Fernandez with Planning Development, for the record, representing
the applicant.e
Page 193
December 13, 2005
First let me say, I apologize for my inconvenience for not being
here at the last meeting and requiring a continuance.
Having said that, the PUD basically is a commercial PUD today,
4.02 acres, consists of an existing hotel, and a Bennigan's franchise
restaurant.
The owner of the hotel is not the owner of the restaurant. They're
separate entities, though they have common facilities as a land
condominium that governs the developments and management of the
two parcels.
The existing hotel, you may have seen over the years, has
changed flags over and been a private concern. It's currently closed.
It has not been a financial success.
The owner has sought to find a more appropriate use for the
project. He's identified that as a residential condominium. He has
studied and has evaluated the building and formalized a plan that will
yield 56 units. The original application was for the maximum units at
64 that would be potentially available for this site.
The existing restaurant, as it stands today, is proposed to remain.
Our client would love to, perhaps in the future, buy that and come
before you again with an amendment to change it to a -- perhaps, an
office use, but it hasn't materialized yet.
In the neighborhood review process, we met with the neighbors.
We -- the neighborhood generally was supportive of the project. The
one major concern are the impacts from the existing restaurant.
There's noise, there's light, there's traffic that's generated by it.
At that meeting there was a consideration put out there that there
should be a wall built as currently required by the land development
code between commercial and residential uses. There appeared to be
some impediments, but after review of the existing easements and
talking to the people that install those walls, we were able to come up
with a design that would allow for the incorporation of this six-foot
high concrete component wall fence that should significantly aid in
Page 194
December 13,2005
mitigating the concerns of the neighborhood, and that was a -- really a
pnmary concern.
And generally they really think that the -- there's a very positive
impact going from the commercial hotel to the residential land use.
There was some questions raised or that -- about the parking on
the project. What you referred to in your disclosures, I assume, was
an analysis that we did, real quickly, that there was a 105-room hotel.
That hotel had some accessory uses that were originally permitted,
although not necessarily utilized. It never had a lounge. There was
also a restaurant.
The number of parking spaces that were provided at that time
was in excess of the requirement. Subsequent SDP amendment, the
hotel rooms remain the same, as well as the meeting rooms and the
lounge for the hotel.
The restaurant square footage was increased in anticipation of an
increase in the hotel square footage that never materialize.
Subsequent to that, Bennigan's, franchise holder of Bennigan's
purchased the restaurant and amended it again and subsequently
reduced the parking spaces slightly.
The number of -- if you've been by the project lately, you've seen
that there's existing or ongoing renovation to the existing building at
the time, both interior and also exterior. There was originally some
exterior dining areas. That's being retrofitted now with a bar.
We did research and got a copy of the floor plans for the
restaurant as it's being constructed right now, did analysis and
take-offs off that plan, and derived the following calculations from it,
and also the survey that was recently done to confirm those areas.
Currently by code, if the amendment to the zoning is approved,
it's -- the code requires the greater of, parking by area or parking by
seating for the public areas, and parking by areas for the non-public
areas.
In that case, 92 parking spaces are required for the restaurant.
Page 195
December 13, 2005
The occupational license indicates that there's 150 plus seats for the
restaurant.
Should a state permit allowing liquor be in force, there's a
requirement there for 200 plus seats, which would require a minimum
of 111 spaces, or 19 that are not currently shown on the site plan,
although we've done an analysis that would suggest that we would be
able to gain those additional parking spaces and be compliant. Those
redefined areas would essentially be between the two structures, the
restaurant and the hotel.
As far as -- there was a question asked of whether or not the
project could be changed to a true bar. It could and it would require a
parking of 26 additional spaces; however, the PUD that is being
requested does not list it as a bar, so a bar would be prohibited. It
basically has to remain a restaurant as currently proposed.
Currently, the plans for the site in our analysis -- our client's
analysis of the existing building, as you can imagine that's a hotel, so
the units are relatively small in the existing facilities. Recombining
those units and using other public areas, he has a conceptual design of
two units -- or 21 two-bedroom units for 42 spaces, and 35
one-bedroom units at 1. -- one and three-quarter spaces, so a total of
103.
That would -- between the restaurant and the residential areas, it
requires a total of 195 parking spaces. The graphic that was submitted
as part of the PUD master plan, graphically depicts 196 spaces. And
again, we have done an analysis that would suggest we can get 20 plus
additional parking -- compliant parking spaces between either the two
structures or immediately behind the existing hotel to the east.
This is a project that we suggest to you is a benefit to the
community. It's going to create a mixed-use development, which is
more desirable. It will reduce, generally speaking, traffic trip
generation from the site. It was more favored by the residential
neighborhood, and I think you'll increase the overall quality of that
Page 196
December 13, 2005
particular development as a whole.
With that, if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer
those.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Fernandez, I'm glad today is
fitting your schedule to be here.
Now, this is zoned commercial, so what you're essentially doing
is doing a commercial conversion to residential?
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's current -- it's a PUD. It would be--
there wasn't previously a commercial PUD designation. But yes, it's a
-- essentially going from commercial to mixed use. So it has the
opportunity for both commercial and residential development.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's approximately 14 units
per acres?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. That's what's proposed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, Marjorie, this is
allowed under our GMP because it's close to an activity center, or is it
the converting commercial to residential or is it something else?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Mr. Bosi, would you just put that
on the record?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning and Land Development Review
staff. This petition is not seeking to utilize the conversion of
commercial to residential density bonus. This is strictly seeking the
density rating system within a mixed-use activity center, which
permits a density up to 16 units per acre by -- or as an eligible density.
So they are not seeking the conversion of commercial to residential
density.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that an entitlement?
MR. BOSI: The growth management plan does not -- does offer
entitlements toward zoning. They offer maximum ranges that a
development could seek, but by no means is density an entitlement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So are you seeking any
Page 197
December 13, 2005
affordable housing credits or S.H.I.P. monies for this project?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir, but I have -- I've had an
opportunity to talk to the developer, and he's accepted the
responsibility to provide $1,000 per unit to the county fund, as many
of the other mixed-use developments, or DR! developments that have
gone before you in recent times, and that credit would apply should
there be a nexus fee that is associated with affordable housing in the
near term.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So these will be market rate,
similar to other areas of the coastal area of Collier County?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you feel that we have -- why
do you think it's beneficial, because we need more of that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: The reason it's beneficial, I think, sir, is
because right now what we have is a shuttered hotel, it's a failed
facility. There is a desire by the neighborhood to reduce the
commercial impacts of that development.
What we're talking about doing is rehabbing, increasing the value
of this property into a 111ixed-use development that has all of those
positive attributes.
Because it is in the activity center, there is a greater likelihood
that there's going to be pedestrian movement between this facility,
local restaurants. There's a significant number of offices in that
immediate area. My own office is just a block away from this facility.
You've got N ewgate Center with almost 100,000 square feet.
There's numerous others.
So it's potentially capturing a significant amount of traffic in that
area by residential use as opposed to attracting it for a commercial
venture.
So I believe it will have significant positive impacts on both the
attributes of on-site facilities as well as to the community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know what a real
Page 198
December 13, 2005
benefit is, if your secretary that works for you can live there and work
and then walk to the office, or the person that works at Walgreen's
down the street.
MR. FERNANDEZ: You're absolutely right. That would be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wouldn't that be great?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That would be ideal. I mean, I would love
to -- I would love to be working over my own home, but my wife has
objections to that because I'm a workaholic, but that kind of -- that
kind of relationship is the ideal relationship that mixed use allows for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I think maybe that's
the intent of mixed use. And mixed use is -- the intent is to have a
mixture of housing elen1ents within it, different price points. I think
that's the intent of it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think in the -- in the -- in a global picture
you're absolutely right. It needs to be based on context. We're
currently working on a proj ect right now of 38 acres that will have
units that vary from the 300s to the million dollar range in a nice,
probably bell curve, and probably even have an affordable housing
element of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not to get too far off the
subject, but that's another day. I couldn't even afford that, $300,000,
but that's another day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, I think, was
next. Commissioner Coletta, I'm sorry, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I could.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The donation that you're going
to make, that $1,000 per unit --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- that's very big of your
company, and I appreciate them being willing to step up to the plate.
They're going to pay this upfront, aren't they?
Page 199
December 13,2005
MR. FERNANDEZ: That would be at closing, consistent with
the other agreements that have been reviewed and considered by your
board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. We're running into some
problems trying to find money to buy land at today's prices. And how
far away would this money be available, the full 56,000?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, the owner would love to go forward
immediately. He would be -- he would hope, since the structure is
already in place, although there's significant improvements that need
to be made, that he would have these units available in the fall of next
year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't think there's any
possibility the owner n1ight be able to split the time between the fall of
next year and the present time as far as that money becoming
available? I'm looking at money at today's value versus money next
fall, what it may be for the price of property.
MR. FERNANDEZ: How about, if I could suggest at application
for building permit, which he hopes to do here in the near term, so that
you're probably looking at February, which would get us more than
halfway as opposed to closing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, February the
owner --
MR. FERNANDEZ: That way he would have, hopefully, his
financing in place at that time as well and have funds available.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It could be as early as February?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ifhe can get all his consultants to get all of
his work done, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What kind of measurement do
we have to be able to know when that time is coming?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You were saying halfway. Why don't we
say no later than June of next year?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate the stepping
Page 200
December 13, 2005
forward and being willing to make a concession like that.
Now, just one other question, if I may.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: These apartments that you're
going to have, they're going to be one standard rate, or you don't know
what the price of them's going to be?
MR. FERNANDEZ: They're condominiums. They're for fee
simple sale. No, sir. A lot is going to depend on the structural and
interior improvements that still haven't been yet defined. As we're all
aware, the market right now is fluctuating very much in terms of cost,
so it's hard to pin down at this time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I find it difficult that the individual
that's going to invest all this money doesn't have any idea what the
price range of these condominiums are going to be. I wouldn't think
that would be very good business sense, so he's got to have some area
that he's working in.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Sir, again, so much has varied. I believe
when we spoke early on, that the entry level would probably be
around 350-, but costs gone -- continue to go up, and I think that that
number is probably going to escalate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So you're probably looking
at somewheres around 500- to start with.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Sir, I don't know yet. A lot will depend on
what he's -- how he's able to put these units together.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You said that you had a total
possibility of 195 parking spaces, correct?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That are graphically shown right now.
There's 196 that are shown on our master plan that would be available
for this proj ect as --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's with the restaurants and
Page 201
December 13,2005
everything else that are all told in this, right?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. And we had have the
opportunity to potentially redesign some areas at the site that would
allow an increase of, perhaps, 20 plus additional parking spaces.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that take out some green
space area then?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, but it will remain above the
minimum requirements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My concern is that looking
at this, I would think that maybe -- I think right now the planning
commission basically said that you were capable of putting 54 units in
there, is that correct, or 56 units?
MR. FERNANDEZ: At the planning commission they were
poised to approved the 64. We told them that we could reduce the
number simply because we've done enough analysis to know that 56
was the maximum number that the -- that the existing skeletal frame of
the building was going to yield. We're not looking at building units
basically as a separate structure, but we're utilizing an existing
building.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is, with the amount of
parking spots that you've got there, even though you're going to
change some configurations in there to up the parking, I'm concerned
with the potential residents that are going to be in there. Most of them
will probably have at least two cars. And so I'm wondering if you
designated like 92 parking spots for 54 units. Have you looked at that
possibility?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. I think that's the reason that we're
-- one of the reasons we're looking at reconfiguring that area outside.
Like I said, 35 of the units, I believe, are one-bedroom units so that it's
less likely that they will have two parking spaces. Our code requires
1.75. With the additional 20 parking spaces, that would get us up to
nearly two units per -- two per unit.
Page 202
December 13, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You don't think that the,
with the expansion -- the possible expansion of the restaurant, bar,
whatever they're going to come up with, you don't -- you don't believe
that that would be an infringement on the parking spots that would be
set aside for the people in the condominiums?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe that the landowner basically is
working with his attorneys to create the documents that will delineate
the sale and use of those units along with their limited common
elements, which would be the parking spaces. And they assure us --
this developer has done very few hotels, and not done well at this one,
but he's done numerous housing developments in our community, and
I believe he knows his Inarket well and will be able to create a nice
project here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'm going to put my fellow
commissioner on the spot, since this is in his district. Commissioner
Coyle, do you feel comfortable with what's been presented here so far,
or have you got some questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: My primary concern was with respect to
inaccuracies in the original submission, and I asked the staff and I met
with Mr. Fernandez concerning that.
I am generally uneasy with the concept that we are supposed to
approve rezones without any reconsideration of future concurrency or
the effect on the concurrency, but that is our process. I don't like it,
but that is the process we have to follow.
So what I was concerned about is that there -- is that the number
of parking spaces that are required here are determined by the types of
residential units that are being developed. For example, an efficiency
unit has, I think, one and a half or one and three-quarters --
MR. MUDD: One and a half.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and a two-bedroom unit has a two
requirement for parking spaces. So it appeared to me, following your
argument, that in order to make a financial analysis, appropriate
Page 203
December 13,2005
financial analysis, you'd really have to know how many efficiency
units and how many two-bedroom units you're likely to build here to
make this thing work out financially, and thereby, we should have
been able to predict the number of parking spaces that are necessary,
and -- but that wasn't reflected on the site plan that was submitted with
this particular petition.
So all these things make me feel uneasy when I get a package
that is incomplete or incorrect. I would rather have one without a
parking diagram rather than to have one with the wrong parking
diagram, as an example.
But my concerns have been allayed to a considerable degree, and
also because I know that we will have a chance to determine this issue
on parking later. Although, quite frankly, I do not like that process,
okay. So I hope that answered your question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it did. I just feel that -- I feel
uncomfortable if the residents feel that they're going to have -- each of
them are probably going to have at least two parking spaces per
residence, whether it's a one-bedroom or it's a two-bedroom.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner Halas, I can commit that we
can add those additional nine spaces. In other words, we can find the
room in that site to make that work so that, if you'd like, we -- right
now, the PUD, because it's silent to the issue of parking, it falls back
to the land development code. If you'd like, we can commit to two
parking spaces per unit, if you'd feel more comfortable.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just don't want to -- yeah, because
the end result is, if those residents happen to go out for the evening or
whatever and then come back and find out their parking spots have
been taken, they're going to be pretty irate, and chances are, we'll be
getting some e-mail on that. Why did you guys approve something
like this, okay?
So I just want to make sure that the future residents that are going
to be occupying this are going to have adequate parking, and it's going
Page 204
December 13, 2005
to be designated for them so that there isn't any confusion if there
happens to be an overflow at the restaurants or if the restaurant closes,
and then we look at this as an office area, then obviously, we have
really address -- get the parking paired down. But when it's open as an
open restaurant, there's no way you can control how many cars or
vehicles are going to be in that parking lot, so that's my concern.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I agree. We can commit to those two
parking spaces per units designated for the residential use, and I think
that's not an unwise decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, did you
have anything or was this from last time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was from last time. I just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I can't understand--
I thought we were going to try to give bonus -- density bonus away to
an element of housing that we need here in Collier County, but I see
we're not going that way. But anyways, I'm not --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd put it on the table.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd put it on the table, bring it up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, like you said,
it's Commissioner Coyle's district. But Pine Ridge Road is really busy
from people coming from Golden Gate Estates and other areas getting
to their job, and I don't see where this is going to help traffic in any
way, any stretch of the imagination. Getting it in a market rate to
where condos are in -- townhouses are $400,000 now. You're going to
have two cars or at least a winter car, winter Cadillac or Lincoln
Continental --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and, you know, the ideal thing
to do proper land planning is locate those people close to their jobs,
and we're not doing it here today. That's my opinion.
Page 205
December 13,2005
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner, may I offer a suggestion?
Just for future purposes, I think what might be beneficial here -- and
we'll commit and we can put this down as a PUD requirement for
monitoring. I would suggest that we provide a questionnaire for the
people that actually buy the units and find out where they work. I'd
love to have that information filter back to staff and to your
commission, to the commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who said they're going to work?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I think that might be valuable
information, too. I think that would be valuable information to
projects that are labeled mixed use. I think over a period of time,
you'll end up with tracking data and it will enable you to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you want to rezone it, and
then let's do a survey? That's what you're saying?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Boy, that makes a lot of
sense to me.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think it would be helpful, because it's data
that we do not have currently.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further questions by
commissioner?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, Commissioners,
mixed -- where I'm coming from, a mixed-use project, residential, it's
not mixed. It's market rate. And you've got tons of that up in North
Naples area vying for beach parking, and we have an opportunity
when we have density, residential density, that we're giving it away,
Page 206
December 13,2005
let's do it right and make it a real mixed use.
And I mean, I'd be willing to continue with that if --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Mr. Fernandez would like to
talk to his client and see if he wants to make this a true mixed use,
apply for some -- go to Mr. Giblin and apply for some type of a
density that way.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand where you're coming from,
and I don't disagree with you in your normal project. This is not that
normal project in that we basically have a failed business that we're
trying to resuscitate the land use on, and we don't really have the same
opportunities we would.
Because I agree with you that the ideal mixed use should really
and truly integrate the residential and commercial components. That
rarely happens. But I would suggest to you, for instance, Marcotto
(phonetic) that was recently approve by the board, doesn't have an
affordable housing con1ponent. It has --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the density?
MR. FERNANDEZ: It will be mixed use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the density,
Marc otto?
MR. FERNANDEZ: The density on that project, based on gross
acreage, was three, but based on net, it was 16.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The base density in the urban
area -- and it's not an entitlement, just like density bonuses -- is four
units per acre. You're asking for 14 units, 10 more units than what is
considered base.
Okay. Well, I'm going to make a motion to deny. Density it not
an entitlement.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just want to remind the
commission, again, that under the case that I cited previously, City of
Naples versus Center Plaza, Inc., that the board must make findings
Page 207
December 13, 2005
based on evidence presented here today as to the criteria attached as
Exhibit A.
This time there are the regular rezone criteria, as well as the PUD
criteria, as a basis for making the motion, and anyone that votes in a
different fashion, in other words, not supporting the motion, I need
them to also put in the record their reason. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- Mr. Fernandez also
agrees with me that mixed use is truly a mixed use of housing types.
Number six, whether the proposed changes will adversely
influence the living conditions in the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where are you, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page -- Exhibit A. It's page 19.
Number 13, whether there is substantial reasons why the property
cannot be used according to existing uses.
I don't -- bailing out a business owner that can't make his
business work, I don't think that's our job, whether it's impossible to
find other unique sites in Collier County for proposed districts already
permitted in such uses.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more -- number 16?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He actually started with 13.
Okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner Henning, a second
by Commissioner Coletta for disapproval.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The -- Commissioner Henning, I
just need a little clarification in regards to the impact -- the one that
you brought up was the impact to the neighborhood. Were you
referring to traffic or what were you -- how were you going to
designate?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I mean, there's no
guarantee that this is going to reduce traffic. It sounds like you've got
a building that, it's not being utilized right now as a hotel. It's a failed
Page 208
December 13, 2005
business. And you're going to increase traffic. You don't know how
many. The average vehicles in Collier County per -- residents need is
2.5.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then I believe they were also
going to expand the restaurant, right, for additional parking?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Mr. Fernandez, go ahead.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Would it be possible for -- to have you
consider a continuance so that we may further consider your input?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion on the floor, only if
we either have it withdrawn or we vote on it can we dispose of it. So
is there a preference by the motion maker?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that question was asked,
specifically asked, so I feel that there was an opportunity to continue
it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No offense, but I'm for trying to
reach resolution with this, and I withdraw my second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I make a motion for
continuance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion dies now for lack of a
second.
There's a new motion by Commissioner Coletta to -- a motion for
continuance. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 209
December 13,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas is
dissenting. It passes 4-1.
MR. MUDD: Before you -- before you quit on this particular
item, can we get the petitioner to tell us when he's going to be ready to
come back to the board so we can get that kind of locked into the
schedule?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sure we can be ready at your next
meeting, which would be?
MR. MUDD: First meeting in January. That's fine.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Giblin is back there if you need his
assistance in making a decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When is our next meeting?
MS. FILSON: January 10th.
MR. WEIGEL: January 10th.
MR. MUDD: It's the 10th, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to continue on the
continuance a bit, and that is, this is a continued item coming to
today's agenda, so we need to be able to count from the initial board
meeting date that it was scheduled for, because under our policy, we
can only go up to five weeks without a requirement for
readvertisement.
If we need to readvertise, we need to be able to know that with
the lead time required working through the clerk's offices, which is
typically 17 days, it may be -- it may be impossible to get it properly
advertised for the January 10th date, if we need to readvertise.
So I'd like to first confirm whether we must readvertise. I suspect
Page 210
December 13,2005
that we will because today's the 13th, and the 10th is four weeks away.
We've only got five weeks, and we just came from two weeks. So it
looks like we're over --
MR. MUDD: It was originally supposed to be heard on the 15th
of November, David.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. So readvertisement will be necessary.
But I think then that it will probably be impossible through the time
frame that's required for advertisement to get it on in the January 10th
meeting. They can try, but it may be that it may end up having to be
through the process for the second meeting in January.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, suppose we say the earliest
practical meeting?
MR. WEIGEL: That would be fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That would be the second meeting
in January then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, whatever --
MR. WEIGEL: Wherever it falls, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2005-71: PUDZ-2005-AR-7299 COMMUNITY
SCHOOL OF NAPLES, INC. REPRESENTED BY D.W A YNE
ARNOLD, AICP OF Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.,
AND RICHARD D. YOV ANOVICH, OF GOODLETTE,
COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM
THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)
ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A
MAXIMUM OF 148 SINGLE-FAMILY, TWO-FAMILY, DUPLEX
OR MUL TI-F AMIL Y DWELLING UNITS IN A PROJECT TO BE
Page 211
December 13, 2005
KNOWN AS MANCHESTER SQUARE. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 36.9 ACRES
IS LOCATED AT 13275 LIVINGSTON ROAD, IN SECTION 12,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 8E. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-2005-AR-7299, Community School of Naples, Inc.,
represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor &
Associates, P .A., and Richard D. Y ovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman
and Johnson, requesting a rezone from the agricultural zoning district
to the residential planned unit development, RPUD, zoning district, to
allow development of a maximum of 148 single-family, two-family
duplex or multi-family dwelling units in a project to be known as
Manchester Square.
The subject property consisting of approximately 36.9 acres is
located 13275 Livingston Road in Section 12, Township 49 south,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before we get started, I need to ask if
our court reporter needs a quick break. Is it about that time?
THE COURT REPORTER: After this one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. This is probably going to take at
least five minutes.
THE COURT REPORTER: After is fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. I made her work overtime last
time, so I'm going to make sure she gets her break at the appropriate
time this time, so if we have to break in the middle of this, that's what
we're going to do.
You ready? Please, anyone who is going to give testimony in
this petition, please stand and be sworn in.
Page 212
December 13, 2005
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ex parte disclosure by
commissioners. We'll start with Commissioner Henning now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One e-mail correspondence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've had a meeting with Rich
Yovanovich and Wayne Arnold.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have also had a meeting with Mr.
Arnold and Mr. Y ovanovich concerning this project.
And how about Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I need a little bit of help. Did
we meet -- we met on this, didn't we? Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My disclosure didn't show it,
but yes, we did meet, and I also talked to Jim Mudd and Joe Schmitt
on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I had no outside correspondence
with anyone on the outside. Only correspondence was in regards to
staff and county manager.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's have the presentation, Mr.
Yovanovich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Rich Yovanovich, on behalf of the
petitioner. With me is Jeff Burr (phonetic) and Barry Ernst with WCI,
which is the contract purchaser, and Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor
& Associates, the project planner.
This item actually was unanimously approved by the planning
commission and was originally scheduled to be on the summary
agenda.
Mr. Chair, I'll ask for your guidance. It was pulled, I believe,
because of some last-minute issues with transportation that we worked
out with staff. I can go through a full-blown presentation, or I can go
Page 213
December 13,2005
right to the transportation issues and how we resolved those.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go to the issue of -- that caused it to
be pulled.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then we will let the commissioners
ask some questions, and then you get a better feel for what --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I didn't want to -- I didn't want to
take up too much of your time, but I also didn't want to leave out
anything.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I agree.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There were -- basically there were two
issues raised regarding transportation. The first issue was a request
that we share access with the property to the north. And our access is
currently scheduled to be on Livingston Road. You can see that up on
the visualizer. It's to the very north of our property.
We have agreed to add a note to the PUD master plan that
provides for interconnection with our property owner to the north if
basically two conditions are made. They pay one-half of the cost to
build the entrance and they pay their prorata share of the cost to
maintain the entrance.
We did not want a situation like you recently had on another
project where the cost of the interconnection was not addressed. We
wanted that addressed up front so nobody could -- nobody could say,
give us $2 million for interconnection. We wanted to make it clear.
We're both going to have to build an entrance, so we thought a
50/50 split was fair on the cost of building the interconnection.
The second request was that we meet with your staff and the
school board staff to discuss the possibility of having an entrance on
Osceola Trail Boulevard, and Osceola Trail Boulevard is on our south
boundary. It's a lighted intersection.
Your staff and, frankly, we, would prefer that to be our access.
The school board has -- school board staff has agreed to meet with us
Page 214
December 13, 2005
and discuss the possibility of their making a recommendation to the
school board and possibly ultimately up to the governor and cabinet.
There's a right of reverter on that property that basically says, it can't
be used for anything but school purposes or it would revert back to the
state. So we would have to have the state release that right of reverter.
Weare going to meet with your staff and school board staff to
address the possibility of access onto Osceola Trail Boulevard, and
hopefully that will work out, and we'll have that as an access point.
We have worked it out with staff that we would have directional
left-in on Livingston Road at this point for our project, and then
ultimately with the project to the north if they decide to interconnect,
which I would imagine they would want to interconnect, because it
would provide better access for them.
With that, those were the two transportation issues that came up.
I think staff is comfortable with that. We've put a note on the PUD
master plan that addresses those issues.
And with that, we'll answer any other questions you may have
regarding the proj ect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, do you have any
questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's your gut feeling in regards
to working out the -- on the south boundary of the property with the
school board?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I quit betting my gut a long time ago.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, a lot of times that's your best
feel on that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will tell you that we had good
discussions in the hallway today about getting together with them and
getting -- they want to see some planning data.
They want to know traffic counts that we're going to have, and
Page 215
December 13, 2005
they're going to have to provide us with some traffic information too.
Keeping in mind that this is where their -- all their buses come in and
out. They've got their administrative center, they've got two schools
that also use that.
So they want to get together with us and talk about, what's the
real impact of our 148 units there, keeping in mind the traffic that's
already there.
So I think we've actually had better discussions than we've had in
the past, so I'm cautiously optimistic, if that's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because my concern is that we all
live in this community, this county together, and if we can help one
another out in regards to addressing interconnectivity and the traffic
issues -- and I know the school board there has a number of ingress
and egress capabilities -- and to help in regards to getting this
permitted.
Again, we need to have interconnectivity. And really my vote
hinges on hope then on the idea that we can put out a working
relationship, but right now we don't -- we don't have that -- we don't
have a clear bet on that right now.
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Well, we're working with your staff, and
we're working with school board staff, and hopefully this can all be
worked out. If not, you know, Commissioner, there's not really much
we can do. I mean, we don't control the school board's property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand where you're coming
from, but I'm just concerned, and I'm hoping that maybe some of the
school board members can assist us in addressing this issue, because
obviously it's part of the community, and I think that's -- we all need
to see what we can do to address all the traffic issues.
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. My question's directed to
Mr. Feder, if I may.
Page 216
December 13,2005
Mr. Feder, we've heard this situation so much, many times in the
past, and we have, in some occasions, come up with some pretty
clever working arrangements. In all honesty, what's the best way to
handle something like this? Should be just put this into the -- if we
agree to approve it, should we just make it conditional that they have
that type of access?
MR. FEDER: I would ideally like to say conditional, but we
don't know for sure that we'll get it approved.
I think Commissioner Halas pretty correctly summarized our
concern. First of all, it's noted that this issue came up at the 11th hour
after unanimous vote by the planning commission. That was only
after the planning commission was advised by a school board member
that they had a reverter clause, and therefore, you couldn't get access
to Osceola.
My position was that I don't understand why. When I spoke to
the school board staff, they said they didn't have the data on the traffic
impacts to understand the implications. I said, fine, if you get the
data, would you at least entertain the school board considering this
issue and should they approve bringing it to state, because I can't
imagine that we couldn't get that issue moving forward.
My concern is, we're working with Livingston and we're trying to
establish it as a controlled access facility. We've got a signalized
location at Osceola Trail underutilized, specifically only for one use.
We have that throughout the county, as you alluded to,
Commissioner Halas, and that is that right now Imperial Golf Estates
is looking for access to Livingston, and yet the school board, who is
getting ready to put one in, doesn't want to allow them to jointly
access through there.
I've got Oil Well Road where the Waterways is looking for good
access and -- Orangetree, I should say, and in that case they have a
signal at the school, at the high school, which they have ability to
move down just a little bit and create an access on that signalized
Page 21 7
December 13,2005
intersection to both purposes.
So in many cases, we're finding that we're not getting this
opportunity to coordinate, and that's what I'm hoping, along with this
issue, to bring to the school board and get as a change in position.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you.
Mr. Feder, this is a little sidebar to it. I'd like very much to see if
this commission could direct you and one commissioner to go to the
school board and be part of their agenda and make a formal plea to
them. Maybe we haven't reached the right people.
MR. FEDER: I would certainly appreciate having one of the
commissioners there with me, because that's what I intended to try and
do with this. And that's why I'm saying, you can't necessarily put a
conditional on this developer. They get access onto Livingston if I
can't find alternate. But I believe we ought to be pursuing the
alternate rather than just accepting easily.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think this is an excellent idea,
and if we get to the point and decide to do it, I'm going to personally
volunteer Commissioner Coyle. But I agree.
MR. FEDER: I'd be happy to do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In all seriousness, I don't know
how far I want to proceed with this. And I don't want to impact
Livingston Road. I don't want it to end up being another -- another
failing road sometime in the future because we allowed one, then
another, then another element to come into it without controls.
Shared access is the direction that we've held some people at bay
for some time on. In fact, Richard, we've been through this on 951 not
too long ago.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. Commissioner, I'll let Richard jump in in a
second. I need to tell you also, the other note that they put on there
was to the north. We've got a property owner there that we're looking
at the prospects between the Airport and Livingston, trying to get
Page 218
December 13,2005
connection in the future to keep that open as an option. Possibly the
ability to connect to either Trade Center or J&C or even further.
And so we're asking them to also work with that, and they've put
that into their plan. So I think they're doing what we're asking. But
neither of those exist today, so they'll get access to Livingston
initially. But those provisions in there are, should we be able to work
out these other issues, we get to establish a better grid system and a lot
less access points onto Livingston.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not going to be able to solve that
issue today.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay? So let's not get that tied up in the
consideration process right now.
The only question I think that is relevant pertaining to this right
now is whether this petitioner has done what you think he should do
with respect to at least retaining some interest in getting a common
entrance, okay? Is that the case?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioners, I can assure you that has
always been our primary goal is to have access off of Osceola Trail
Boulevard. That's a lighted intersection. That's the best access we can
hope for.
We have -- we have attempted to work that through. Fortunately
Norm has come along and offered his services, and hopefully your
continued discussion about this issue will move this further along, that
hopefully we can that -- get that access, that we're committed to trying
to get that access and providing whatever information the school board
staff and the school board itself needs to make an informed decision,
because we want that access.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is student safety a primary reason they
want to limit your access to that road?
MR. FEDER: I'll try to respond a little bit. Obviously that's
everybody's concern.
Page 219
December 13,2005
While in the morning you have some conflict potential, most of
their afternoon p.m. is very different than what would be from this
development as far as use of the signal and the roadway.
Again, what we've committed to is looking at the numbers,
bringing that to the school board and addressing those issues. But
obviously we agree, safety is paramount. But with the numbers that
we have here, we believe we ought to be able to show that we can do
both in a very safe manner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
We -- Marjorie, you had a comment?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes. I just wanted to make one
comment as to note three on the conceptual master plan. It would be
my opinion that that should be included in the language under
transportation in the PUD document because it is a commitment and
should not be located on the master plan. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's fine. And it needs to be
probably clarified that the directional left is not -- that we'll -- we
basically are going to get that directional left now. It's not contingent
upon interconnection. We have provided the opportunity for
interconnection, so it may need to be verified.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Tweaked.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if you want that moved into the
main document, fine. I'm not going to -- I think it's binding on us in
the master plan. But if your attorney's more comfortable, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's done.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think it's --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If it's more comfortable, that's fine.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: -- something that belongs in the
document.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's done. All right.
Norm, you have something else?
Page 220
December 13,2005
MR. FEDER: Chairman, if I could, and you indulge us for a
second. Nick Casalanguida has an issue that he has to note on item
number three from the discussions back here. I'll ask your indulgence
for that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For
the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning Staff.
In the PUD document, in section H of the transportation section it
reads that nothing past the development for right-in, right-out access
only, is the only access they would be guaranteed to get. And in the
PUD section, in note three, it talks about the directional left being that
option.
Although we concur with the direction left, we just want to make
sure that we're clear that Section H in the PUD document would
govern and not note three. And I think we want to make sure that that
conflict is resolved.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think what Nick's trying to say is, right
now the directional left is okay from an operation standpoint. But if
down in the future, transportation staff says, for operational reasons,
safety reasons, they need to close the left turn, I guess he's asking for
us to acknowledge that under H, he can do that. And yes, we
acknowledge that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're all in agreement.
And you have one speaker?
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker. I don't see her. But she may
be out in the hall. Amy Taylor.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. She left.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: She's comfortable.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, while we're talking about the
Page 221
December 13,2005
directional left, after this developer sells all those units, okay, and the
directional left is there, and then to have Norm come back here to this
board and say, we need to close that, you're going to fill this room up
with 148 people that are going to be highly irate. It's like, do I get a
light that becomes unwarranted.
Putting that in there and letting directional left go on Livingston
when you know you don't want it there once you get enough traffic, I
believe you're only creating a headache for yourself in the future. I
think that -- I think that's a bad precedents for yourself and this board,
but -- or for a future board that's going to have to deal with it.
Because I'm going to tell you, if Norman -- once that's there, it's like --
it's been promised, and you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's an entitlement.
MR. MUDD: And you can never get it back again. You leave
that in there, and by God, some other board sometime, it might be you,
okay -- Commissioner Coletta, you want to be here for the next 30
years or so, I've heard you say it before, and that's good. You know,
you're going to have to deal with this again, and you're going to have a
room -- and you're going to go, man, I don't think we made a good
decision when we did that. I believe that's a bad choice on this board's
part if you leave it in there because it's a problem for a future board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, you're the ones
that are going to be here when this thing happens. I'm not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got to make sure I provide for
your great, great grandchildren. I'll be answering to them. So--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: One of the reasons that's in there is -- was
for the interconnection for the property to the north, and that is going
to provide access, better access for both properties, our property and
the property to the north.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Richard, you know, I don't
know about the rest of my fellow commissioners, but I've got a real
discomfort with this. I told you when you were in my office I felt
Page 222
-'-~-'. _...,,~-,._-~,
December 13, 2005
very uncomfortable about this situation with the access. I'm not too
sure how this is going to go, but it might be in your best interest to
consider a continuance indefinitely until you can work out something
better. That's my own opinion. Now--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can vote it up, we can vote
it down.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- I understand that. But let me -- let me
tell you -- we have been in this process for quite a while. Had staff
said to me 10 months ago, go work this out with the school board and
go beyond staff -- because we went to staff several months ago, and
staff said, we're not taking it to the school board. And like we do a lot
of times with your staff, you know, we don't come running to you with
every issue that doesn't work out.
If we'd have known this 10 months ago, I could be further along.
N ow I'm being asked at the 11 th hour to stop what we're doing
and hopefully work this thing out when I have very little control over
what the school board decides. And I have -- we have agreed, it is in
our best interest to make that happen.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you're to the commission
right now, and I can tell you, if my fellow commissioners agree, we go
with Norm F eders (sic) to the school board, because we have several
issues we've got to resolve with them.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, if I could. I just mentioned, and
I'll make sure that all of the folks agree, but essentially I would ask
that you consider making it a deed restriction that that left-in, should
we establish the connection to the north or to the south, would be
removed, or should there be an operational problem and safety
concern in the future, at the discretion of the county, would be
removed, and make that a deed restriction on all sales within this
property .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that would bring it to the attention
Page 223
December 13,2005
of every potential buyer.
MR. FEDER: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So they should not be surprised.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ms. Student, could you
comment on that?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Pardon me? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you comment on that
deed restriction?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I think I'd feel more
comfortable if the applicant agreed to making that --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, I don't have a problem
disclosing it, but I'm not sure a deed restriction's the right place to put
it. I mean, we have no problem notifying all buyers that this left turn
may go away.
We certainly didn't want to make this a big issue. We've been
working with your staff. Your staff has agreed that the left-in is
appropriate in this location, and they also said, hey, if you get Osceola
Trail Boulevard, they decide to close it, but they also wanted the
option to say, hey, we may want to keep it open. Because we had
originally proposed language that it would automatically go away, and
they said, maybe we don't want that either. We want to -- we want to
have the ability to decide whether or not we want that directional left
to go away.
So we've been working with your staff on these issues very
diligently here to resolve these issues, and we have every financial
incentive in the world to try to get access on Osceola Trail Boulevard.
I don't think a continuance is going to change our desire or our
effort to try to make that happen, nor do I think it's going to change
your staffs desire or effort by continuing this. We're all in this -- we're
all working at this together.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nor is it likely that the school board will
make a decision that quickly, but we'll see.
Page 224
December 13, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Norm, or whoever, in regards to if
we eliminated the left-in only, how far down the road do they have to
go before they could make a U-Turn?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Probably about 1,600 feet to the north,
sir, to make a U-Turn. I think there's a church there, at that corner
there, to make a U-Turn to go south.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you say 1,600 feet?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or 600?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sixteen hundred, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A little over a quarter of a mile. I
just don't want to see us get in a box, because if we end up -- and
approve that left-in only at the present time, as was stated, I can just
see right now that we'll have a room full of people in here stating,
nope, you can't close that.
MR. FEDER: The PUD provisions, I think, speak to it, if you
did something in the way of disclosure. We're also looking, that if we
get that connection to the north, which we'd like to think we can get a
connection over to Airport and Livingston as a further reliever in the
area, if we get that, we may well even turn that into a full opening as
opposed to just a left, but definitely the left would stay under that kind
of a structure.
So we're trying to leave the opportunities there, respond to the
property at this time. If you want to go to the specific PUD
provisions, a right-in, right-out is the only thing that they're granted,
then we work with them on the left-in and evaluate that in the future,
that might be an option.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're telling me that if we
leave that there, that eventually is going to be another light put there?
MR. FEDER: You could have the left-in if that becomes the
major issue. Ifwe don't get access to Osceola for some reason, then
that may become a good access point all the way over to Airport, and
Page 225
December 13,2005
it might be even more significant an area to have the consideration of
an interconnect. I'm not looking necessarily for another signal, that's
why I'm trying to get the access to Osceola.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's what I'm trying to find
out, if we're going to put a signal at that location.
MR. FEDER: But a directional left would allow you access on
over to Airport as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It seems to me that we are introducing
issues here that are not appropriate for the approval of this particular
petition. The fact that we might be concerned that someone in the
future might come in and object to something that we have already
done is not a good reason for failing to taken action on a petition
before us today.
MR. FEDER: I would submit the same.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I think you can solve that by having
appropriate notice, because if people are noticed, they are generally
reasonable. If they know it could be taken away under certain
circumstances, then not many of them have a basis for a complaint.
So if we can have some kind of advance notice concerning this, it
would -- it would seem to me to solve the problem that we have
conjured up here at the last minute.
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, if I may
interject. I think what the best thing to do, from an overall standpoint
from this proj ect and the impacts of other proj ects, within the PUD
document, we already have H, 5. 7H, which states that nothing in any
development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right-in,
right-out condition at any access point. That's customary in all the
PUDs.
We can leave that language in, take the notes off of the master
plan that have to do with any kind of a left directional --
MR. FEDER: No, keep that in.
MS. DESELEM: -- and let them work it out. This doesn't say
Page 226
December 13, 2005
they can't. It just doesn't say they can. That way if they can work it
out, it's okay, but it's not going to put anything on a master plan that
we're going to have to later come back and fight over because people
have a perception of something other than what's there.
And the other thing I'd like to mention is that in speaking with
Norm the addition of 5. 7M is to come off, because they've been
working through it with other means. And I agree with Margie, I
think it would be more appropriate to put this in the PUD document so
there's no doubt as to what conflicts with what. It's in writing, and it's
in the PUD document.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You haven't, as far as I can
determine, addressed the issue, if the left directional access is, in fact,
installed, whether it was in the PUD or not, the fact that it is installed,
people become accustomed to it, and then if you remove it without
having some advance notice, then you're still right back in the same
situation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if I might, if you look at the
language that we're proposing on the master plan, it specifically says it
can be eliminated, so we're providing notice to everybody, and we'll
do it also --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: To the buyers, homebuyers. That's
important.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're not going to read the PUD
document.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, but I'm just saying you'll get it
twice. Nobody can argue. If they look at the zoning, they're going to
see it can go away. Plus we will be providing them notice that says it
can go away if Osceola Trail Boulevard works out. I mean, we're
doing -- we thought the note on the master plan provided plenty of
public notice, and we'll do more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 227
December 13, 2005
All right. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Do you think possibly we'd
have a better chance of negotiating with the school board by not
having that left-in? No?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I got the sense from the school board --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got to have some access
somehow.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I got the sense from the school board that
the -- almost a sense like they were being backed into a corner, and
when you're backed in the comer you make some bad decisions. I
think there's -- we've had a lot -- I would like to say we've had a lot of
progress talking in the hallway so hopefully this will all work out. I'm
not going to guarantee it, but hopefully it will.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I like the idea of us
accompanying Norm to a school board meeting and suggesting to
them to work with you on this. I think that's a good way to go, and I
think we ought to approve it with that provision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it's a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning. And
it's a motion which, if I understand correctly, will have number 57M
eliminated.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: 5.7.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 547?
MR. YOVANOVICH: 5.7, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 5.7M eliminated. It will take note 3 and
place it in the PUD document, and you will have a provision for notice
to all potential homebuyers that the possibility exists that the left
Page 228
December 13,2005
directional access from Livingston Road could be removed at some
future point in time, and also let's tie that into an obligation of the
Collier County Commission to petition the school board to get this
issue resolved, okay? Is that all right for everybody?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got a -- we've got a motion
by Commissioner Fiala to do that, and a second by Commissioner
Henning. You agree with those conditions that we just --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one.
Rich, is this going to be a deed restricted community?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Deed restricted as in?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Garage doors down by --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sure there's going to be, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what's the problem of putting
this access in the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I don't mind putting it in the
homeowners' association documents. But I mean, when I hear
somebody say deed restricted, I'm thinking in the actual warranty deed
from me to you, if you wanted to buy a unit there, that says -- I don't
think that's appropriate. But certainly in the homeowners' association
documents, that's not a problem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, did you
have something or do you want to just talk?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. No, I don't want to
just talk. Could you tell me, is there any provisions made for the
affordable housing?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. It's in the PUD. We've taken the
lead, as you know, WCI has, and those same provisions are within this
PUD document as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I really appreciate WCI stepping
up to the plate like they've been doing.
Page 229
December 13,2005
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion -- we've closed
the public hearing.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So let's make it clear here that
there'll be something in the sales information as a prospective buyer,
that there'll be something that's pretty self-evident that there's a chance
that that could be closed off so we don't have an uproar?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will put it right there in the sales
contract, so nobody can --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Appreciate it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- say they didn't know about it, 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.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we're taking a 10-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
You have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are now back in session, and we are
going to item 8F, I presume, which was moved from 17C?
Item #8F
Page 230
December 13, 2005
RESOLUTION 2005-434: ADOPTING COLLIER COUNTY'S
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 12
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY REVERSE OSMOSIS
EXPANSION FACILITIES PLAN, DATED OCTOBER 2005;
ALLOW THIS PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; AND
AUTHORIZE COUNTY STAFF TO CARRYOUT
RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE FDEP LOW INTEREST LOAN
PROGRAM - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. 8F used to be 17C.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And it reads, recommendation to approve a
resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
adopting Collier County's South County Regional Water Treatment
Plant 12 million gallon per day reverses osmosis expansion facilities
plan, dated October 2005, allowing this plan to be submitted to the
Florida Department of Environmental protection and authorize county
staff to carry out responsibilities under the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection low interest loan program.
Commissioner, you see the purpose on the screen. And Tom
Wides is here to present this particular item. But this is what he has to
read in the record.
And this came up, and it's basically a requirement from the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. And you'll notice
the action, and I was going to read this in this morning during the
change sheet, but I felt -- I felt a little awkward trying to open a public
hearing before you ever approved your agenda so that you could
actually leave this on the summary agenda, and I said -- it just got too
hard to do, and I just took it off the summary to bring it on this
agenda. But you have to open a public hearing and you have to close
a public hearing for this particular item, and those paragraphs two,
Page 231
,..~>_..",._---~-,<.,.,......
December 13,2005
three, and four, Tom needs to read in the record.
So if we could open that public hearing right now on this
particular item, that would be wonderful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The public hearing is now open.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Wides?
MR. WIDES: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is now closed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Swear in anybody for a public
hearing?
MR. WIDES: Can I offer you help with $33 million?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MR. WIDES: Seriously. Good afternoon. The purpose is to
adopt Collier County's South County Regional Water Treatment 12
million gallon expansion facilities plan. Once it's adopted, at that
point the county may avail itself of low-cost state revolving funds for
construction of the project.
Due to the rapid population expansion experienced by the county
in the past few years and going forward, it is necessary to expand the
reverse osmosis water treatment capacity of the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant by 12 million gallons per day to a
total of 20 million gallons, and to rehabilitate the gasification towers.
The public purpose is to save taxpayers approximately $9 million
by using a 20-year low interest state revolving fund loan versus
20-year bond ratings at current market price.
Collier County is seeking SRF funding, state revolving loan
funding in the amount of $32.8 million. The current rate structure is
sufficient to absorb the debt for this project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are there any public comments?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can't close it yet. You have certain
requested action that you have to read to us, right?
Page 232
,.--... _.....~.....--_----"....._. -".-.,,-----"""-';...~"'''_..._~....-..._..__.''''
December 13, 2005
MR. WIDES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WIDES: Thank you. The commission is requested to
approve the resolution adopting the facilities plan immediately
following this public hearing. The commission is requested to
authorize the public utilities administrator to execute the document
titled "certification of public participation."
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The public hearing is now closed.
Did I hear amotion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I made the motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas has a motion for
approval and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Coletta has seconded it.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, thank you for your indulgence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Page 233
December 13,2005
MR. MUDD : Commissioner, this brings us to paragraph 11,
which is public comments on general topics.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And I had a Linda Sfara, but I believe she left.
And the next public comment is Kenneth Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm Kenneth Thompson. I live at 2831
Becca Avenue.
And you've got a problem with EMS. You know, I keep calling
Jeff, and you can follow them maybe -- you get behind them, you'll
follow them, they'll go over in the medians, they'll go around the
lights. You only use the lights all night long, in the middle of the day,
and any time, and you follow them, and they'll go from one fire station
to the other.
And the fire department's using these big loud horns for no
reason at all, and that's why I won't ride them. I would be glad to ride
them if they wouldn't carry on the way they're doing. And I'm telling
you it's the truth. They need to be put in their place a little bit because
these EMS trucks cost a lot of money.
And then you got another thing here. I tried to talk to the
garbage man, Mr. -- I don't know what his name is back there --
DeLony. And he won't listen. He's got more garbage on the street
than he's got in the pit out there. You ought to go down around -- look
around Pine Street. They're sitting refrigerators everywhere, the
garbage is all out by my house. I try to get it picked up. I'm not no
slop people. I try to keep my place in good shape.
And then you've got another here that works for code
enforcement. I just spent a fortune putting a fence up from Charley
that ripped it all out. And I called Maggie (sic) and I asked her who
this guy's name was. Do you know what his name is right there, that
licensing contractor?
Anyway, I called him, and I asked him -- what's his name there?
Page 234
December 13,2005
I asked him if he would come out there and take care of this, that the
guy's a scab, and he's cutting trees down on everybody.
And he asked me, well, what do you want me to do about it? I
said, I need you to come out here and stop this man and write him a
ticket. Well, he would not come out there. So I just asked Maggie
what his name was, but Elliot Gertz, something like that.
But it's -- you need to get the garbage up off the street. Just take
a ride down Pine Street and down Becca Avenue. And you just had
the big hurricane come through here, and I was hoping and praying --
I think I told you that day that I wish it would hit right in the middle of
Naples. Well, that's what I said standing right here, and darned if it
didn't. It did a pretty good job, but I was in North Carolina.
They told me my sister was dying in the hospital. She had lung
cancer. But I got down there, it was two of them dying. So I got a
double or nothing.
So I come back up here, and the whole town was bit to pieces.
And I seen people that's using FEMA for no reason at all. The woman
right behind me, she -- it's not a FEMA home. It's the biggest joke in
history. This woman is using -- and you're using FEMA's equipment
to go in people's yards and bring great big stumps out and set them by
the road and leave them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time has expired, Mr. Thompson.
Thank you very much.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. THOMPSON: Anyway, just get the garbage up, if you can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll do it. Mr. DeLony says he's
on it right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hey, Kenny, wish you and your
family a very Merry Christmas and happy new year.
MR. THOMPSON: Take good care of my buddy over there,
Bradford. He's a good cop, the best.
Page 235
December 13,2005
THE BAILIFF: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
MRS. THOMPSON: Happy holidays.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. You, too.
MRS. THOMPSON: Merry Christmas.
Item #12
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County attorney's report?
MR. WEIGEL: I heard your admonition, but I do have one little
thing. The Pelican Bay Municipal Services Taxing Benefit Unit
Advisory Committee through their chairman, Jim Carroll, has worked
with the county manager office and with our office, and has asked me
to come to you to inform you and request to you that they would --
that they, the committee, would like to bring forward an ordinance
amendment to their advisory committee ordinance and Pelican Bay
ordinance that's in place at the present time.
And if possible, if advertising allows, it could conceivably be
here for the January 10th meeting, or probably the latest, the second
meeting in January.
They're looking to have a few changes related to -- to
administration relating to the county manager office and also the
administrator that they have. Previously it was Jim Ward, and they
have a new person right now.
Their modification requests are modest, and with your nod, I'd be
happy to take care of it and bring it forward with Mr. Carroll and the
group, for either the January 10th or the second meeting in January.
MS. FILSON: May I ask one question?
Does it have anything to do with the appointments? Because I've
already issued the press release and sent the letters out. I had to do
that today.
Page 236
December 13, 2005
MR. WEIGEL: I don't think it's going to be affecting?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It doesn't. I don't think it affects
that.
MS. FILSON: Okay,
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Basically what this amounts to is,
Jim Ward had a lot of power when he was running that, and so what's
taking place is they have a new administrator over there, and basically
they've taken some of the power away from him, and they want to put
it on the MSTU committee themselves. So that's basically the change
in the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there's been a change in title, if I
remember correctly. That person is now a manager, not an
administrator; isn't that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. They did some things with the change of
the contract. They reduced the amount of money, annual amount of
money --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That he was getting paid.
MR. MUDD: -- that they were going to spend on it and whatnot.
So he has a reduced job description, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, yep. And you're just asking for a
nod of approval from the --
MR. WEIGEL: That's right, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- I'll assist Mr. Carroll and the group to bring it
forward at either the 10th or the second meeting in January.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do I see three nods?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're okay then.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jim, you don't have anything, I'm sure.
Item #15
Page 237
.~_....----~
December 13,2005
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You told me last time when you did the
zoo property -- and I'm not going back to the zoo property. It closes
on the 19th, and it looks like all three parties are doing okay.
The -- but you asked the county manager's agency, office, to get
back with the Conservancy to work on some kind of constraint as far
as zoning or use of that particular seven acres in the future.
We've had that meeting. I had that meeting with the Trust for
Public Lands, the Conservancy, and our staff and the county attorney's
office.
At the time when we finished that particular meeting, we were in
agreement that that, indeed, would happen; however, the first issue
was, this was going to be a lease purchase for the property, and TPL
was unwilling -- was unwilling to take the zoning off of the property
while they were in the lease purchase position. And it -- originally I
heard four, then it was down to two.
After that meeting was over, I received a phone call from the
Conservancy attorney and real estate agent, and basically said no, they
are going through conventional financing in order to purchase the
particular property.
There is -- and they're still working through this. There is a
chance that the mortgage company will not want to change the zoning
on that particular property until it's owned fee outright by the
Conservancy.
They will provide me an agreement in January that basically
assures this Board of County Commissioners that that property will
not be -- will not be used inappropriately based on their promises to
this board, and I'll have all that information back to you in January.
I told them there was no rush in that particular juncture, but
they're basically -- they say they're -- they're going to keep their word,
Page 238
.",-_..~
December 13,2005
and that will come to us, so we'll be reviewing that.
So I did what you asked me to do. At the time we thought it was
going to be a straight deal. That's what we all had been -- it had been
told to us, but there's some complications to it. So we'll -- I want to
make sure you understand those complications and you know that we
have had this meeting and it is -- it's moving forward.
The next issue is, there's been some correspondence between
some commissioners, some constituents that are talking about the one
square mile of land that the South Golden Gate Estates agreement __
remember with the South Florida Water Management District and the
state where we gave up our road access down there and they were
going to give us the one square mile by 1, October 2005?
It's now the 13th of December, 2005, and the only properties that
have been identified have been the disposal site that's out by Lake
Trafford for their dredging. There have been some specimens taken of
that dredge material, and it has some arsenic and some other particular
chemicals that might not be conducive to the health of humans, and
we're going to try to work through that process.
Now, you told us as a staff to continue to work to try and work
through those arrangements with them. In the meantime, there has
been a lawsuit that's been -- that's been put into the court system
against the county by some landowners down there by Wilson -- I
guess it's Wilson Boulevard -- Miller Boulevard, Miller Boulevard
Extension down the south, and it had to do with access.
And you remember there were statements made by some South
Florida Water Management District representatives, ex-county
commissioners, that said that -- that said that they would indemnify
the county if there was a lawsuit and whatever.
Well, we've got the lawsuit, and we're not being indemnified. So
I believe the County Attorney's Office is working with the attorneys
from the South Florida Water Management District as far as that
particular item is concerned.
Page 239
.._.,--~-
December 13,2005
I also know that this one square mile of land is also on the table
as they try to negotiate some kind of, for lack of better word,
settlement, David, with the South Florida Water Management District
to try to get them to either take this court case on or help us with it.
David, did I get too far out?
MR. WEIGEL: No, you're just fine. Yeah, they didn't indemnify
us. We had a lawsuit, so we did the next best thing, and we included
them in the lawsuit to bring them into the mix.
Under chapter 164 of the Florida Statutes, when you have two
governments in a lawsuit with each other, there is a requirement for a
mediation arrangement to occur, which has occurred. And although
we haven't finished the aftershocks from working through that, I think
there -- I can say modestly there is progress being made and that the
state interests are beginning to recognize the importance of working
with us at this point in time in a professional way.
And, again, we'll just keep you posted as we go a little further
along the line here.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, except for Merry Christmas and
have a happy holiday, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bah humbug.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one thing. I'm sure that
everybody's aware of the lack of the availability of raw dirt material
for our roads here in Collier County. I was apprised there is only one
fill pit here in Collier County. Only -- well, it's not a fill pit. Naples
Landfill is the only fill pit we have, but there's one only (sic)
excavating permit or place that you can get fill in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Big Island.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Big Island?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Somewhere out in there in
Commissioner Coletta's district, way out there off Immokalee Road,
Page 240
~--,,,-,---..
December 13, 2005
why we have all the dump trucks on Immokalee Road.
On the MPO agenda, we have an item of concern and discussion
about excavating pits just in Southwest Florida alone.
The board was petitioned to keep the growth management plan
amendments open, and there is one petition on there in the North Belle
Meade to have another pit, and I want to see that on there because the
board gave direction that we're going to keep that cycle open.
And it should be concerning everybody when we know that the
price of fill's going up, but just the availability for our roads is going
to be a real challenge, and we've got to get these roads done. So I
want to see that amendment, comprehensive amendment on our
calendar.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have more than one pit open
though in the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, off 951.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have one up there off
Immokalee Road, but we also have one on Golden Gate Boulevard.
It's been there for years, and I think there's a couple of other ones.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but they're not mining out
of AP AC.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about Bonness? He has that
one that he's got the bikes racing around. And what about the one
over there off U.S. 41 east?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that one's closed on 951
south, the Bonness.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's closing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's not closed yet, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's very close to closing
because they offered it to us as a park, at one point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. What about the one off
u.S. 41 east?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's -- I'm not too sure about
Page 241
"_.",-+
December 13,2005
that, but you've got --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was just for the Habitat
one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got about three of them
out there and -- out there in the Estates. You've got the, you know,
Shady Grove, I think it's called, and you've got the Big Sandy Island.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you've got another one out
there in Immokalee. I believe they've started to produce.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I was told by the
association that there's only one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think they're talking
about for grade for the rock, the crushed rock.
MR. MUDD: Lime rock.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I thought you were
talking sand. I'm sorry . You're right, just one for crushed rock.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's out here at APAC? Don't
they get rock out of there?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: APAC, are they still producing,
Norm? Just nod.
MR. FEDER: Little bit, but they're closing down. Although
they're opening a new section.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're opening a new section?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Why don't we just ask
staff to give us a report on what is available, what is closing down, and
what is likely to open up. Can we do that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think they did not too long
ago. Stan did that.
But the point is, is we gave -- we said that we're not going to
close the amendment process, and I'm told that there's a deterrent on
Page 242
,-""-~,~,
December 13, 2005
this one, at least this one, not to come forward.
MR. MUDD: What I told -- what I told the Bonness
representative was the fact -- or AP AC representative, was the fact
that we're accepting those compo plan amendments, and this compo
plan amendment would be in front of the board in October or
November of 2006, and I don't believe that that particular time frame
was soon enough for this particular gentleman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're not going to see any
comprehensive amendments until October of 2006?
MR. MUDD: Well, they're going to be going in front of the
planning commission --
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, you'll be seeing the EAR-based
amendments. We're working on those now. They'll be going to the
planning commission and the board.
It's the EAR-based amendments you have to see first. We're
staffing the other amendments, but we can't bring those to you based
on you're in the EAR process right now, and any EAR-based
amendment decisions that mayor may not impact future compo plan
amendments, you have to go through the EAR-based amendments
first.
And you're going to see those. And, of course, those go through
four public hearings, two through the planning commission,
transmittal and adoption, and as well as the board. And those will be
late summer by the time you finish those.
We'll be into the processing of the regular based -- regular
amendments. We have 12 private petitions that we're staffing right
now and going through evaluation. That is one of them.
And as Mr. Mudd pointed out, you'll see that late fall after you--
after transmittal and adopting of the EAR-based amendments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I guess it is what it
is, but we're going to have a problem.
MR. SCHMITT: We're held to that criteria by the state. I mean,
Page 243
,_....'"...'.~
December 13, 2005
we're in the EAR-based process now, and we have to go through those
first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, Merry Christmas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I heard it mentioned a couple
times, especially from you, Commissioner Coyle, today, about -- in a
rezone process, that we don't have enough information regarding
concurrency, and I thought being that we've mentioned it a few times,
maybe we ought to be considering that to amend the LDC to include
something like that, so I wanted to bring that up. And also I wanted to
say, Merry Christmas, happy new year everyone. See you next year.
COMMISSIONER COLETT A: You want me to go before you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Oh, yes, yes. I'm going to save
mine for last so I can blast you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, wow. No, the only thing I
wanted to mention is, I think that our light system over here is a little
antiquated. Poor Commissioner Halas has been straining to try to get
the light on. It was funny at first, and after a while, his face started
turning red like the light should be, and it was starting to bother me.
If we could ever come up with something that would display up
front what commissioner's lights on, in other words, the public should
know, I would think that, you know, a commissioner's waiting to
speak on the item. It might -- and be more visual, because I also know
that the way these lights are situated, Commissioner Halas has no idea
if his light works or not. He's continuously pushing the button. Well,
it doesn't work anymore.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought it was programmed to do
that today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now he can't get it to go off.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Coyle--
Page 244
December 13,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I can make it go off.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Coyle programmed it that way
today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I fixed it so it wouldn't come up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I think it would be
beneficial if we could come up with something that would be able to
give the viewing public an idea that these commissioners are
interested in the subject and they're waiting to speak.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We can put whistles and bells on
there, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Something with remote
controls, a whistle and a bell.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd just like to have a master switch so I
can turn the whole blasted thing off, is what I'd like to do. Or
alternatively, turn off a commissioner's mike.
But Commissioner Halas, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wait, no, I'm not through. I've
got a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: See what I mean?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is your last meeting, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Merry Christmas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. There was a special ad hoc
subcommittee out of the productivity committee that recently
reviewed our ordinance, 2001-37, and they felt that there was some
wording that may need to be changed because they felt it was too
restrictive in some areas of the committee's compositions of rules and
procedures, and they would like to work with the county attorney and
-- to get some of their wording and verbiage straightened around.
So I think we need some direction to give to staff here to address
this issue and make sure that we bring the ordinance up to date.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's very limited information
Page 245
"'-_.....~.. '-'-"'-"'..<->"~--"--'-
-··"-·",'···-··"~;_·_--,P.~'·"~'
December 13, 2005
that you're giving. I have no idea what the ordinance says or what
they want to change. Is there -- is there a possibility they can __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- request them in writing to the
Board of Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't know if there's -- I just got
this one draft that was given to me the other day, and I can surely give
you this to read and then we can make a decision maybe at the next
meeting, but it's something I think that we wanted to get clarified so
that we don't run into any particular problems.
MS. FILSON: Is it the ordinance establishing the productivity
committee?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's an ordinance -- well, it's--
yeah, it's the ordinance that established the productivity committee,
that they want to readdress some language in that and get the language
straightened around and some verbiage in there that they'd like to have
addressed. There was --
MR. MUDD: It's ordinance 2001-37, Sue.
MS. FILSON: I got that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay,
MR. MUDD: So Commissioner, what --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All we're doing is just asking for
the -- a nod from you to have them work with the county attorney to
address those issues so that those concerns are taken care of and that
the productivity committee basically is in a better -- a better light here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You've got one nod from here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Vh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Got three nods?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What issues? You're saying
issues, but I don't know what the issues are that we want to change.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think probably the best
Page 246
---..- ·····~__~,_._>~....·.·_.n""
December 13, 2005
thing to do is to have you read this. I think it's something that needs to
be addressed. And how many nods do you need, three?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To bring it back?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, to have -- to go forward with
where -- this has to be approved anyway by us. All this is is to give
direction to the productivity committee in conjunction with the county
attorney so that they can dress up the ordinance. The ordinance will
then come back to us for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And this is -- that's your committee,
isn't it? And this is something you want to do?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then you've got my nod.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got a nod here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got enough. All right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And Commissioner Henning, there
is a draft here. If you're so inclined, I'll pass it down to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, that would be great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you let Commissioner
Henning see that so he can give his input to the county attorney if he'd
like to see certain things done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This will be coming back to us for
approval anyway, and they'll probably -- when it comes before us,
they'll have where the things -- things that -- items that were added to
and the strikeouts, so it will be -- we'll be able to see exactly what the
changes were. Because I'm sure there'll be strikeouts and then there'll
probably be double underlining of where the new language has been
put into effect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I want to wish everybody a
Page 247
'"---,...
December 13, 2005
Merry Christmas and happy new year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have no correspondence or
communications at all, but I also would like to wish everyone a
wonderful Christmas, a happy holiday, and a prosperous and healthy
new year, and I won't be the chairman next year.
MR. MUDD: You don't think so.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There may be a crew, you know?
MS. FILSON: For at least an hour. You will for at least an hour.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For an hour. And January the what,
10th?
MS. FILSON: Yes, January 10th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are adjourned.
***** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: * * * * *
Item #16Al
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR ECKERD'S (DONOVAN CENTER PUD)-
W/RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR OLDE CYPRESS, UNIT THREE-
W/RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
Page 248
-""...._.~
December 13,2005
SUMMER LAKES A/KIA SA WGRASS PINES - W/RELEASE OF
THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
STERLING OAKS RECREATION CENTER- W/RELEASE OF
THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR STERLING OAKS, PHASE 2B - W/RELEASE
OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
STERLING OAKS RECREATION CENTER - W/RELEASE OF
THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR EAGLE COVE AT SWEETWATER BAY 11-
W/RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR STERLING OAKS, PHASE 2A - W/RELEASE
OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Page 249
December 13, 2005
Item #16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
GREY OAKS, UNIT 16 - W/RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A10
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR EDEN AT THE STRAND - W/RELEASE OF
THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A11
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MOORGATE POINT",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY _
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2005-418: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADW A Y (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "MAHOGANY ESTATES". THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV ATEL Y MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A13
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
Page 250
----,~.., '__..,..~---,.-
". ."-....----,.-.--
December 13,2005
FACILITIES FOR TIBURON BOULEVARD EXTENSION _
W/RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A14
RECORDING OF THE RELEASE AND SATISFACTIONS OF
LIENS, ACKNOWLEDGING COMPLIANCE AND RECOVERY
OF FINES AND FEES RELATED TO THE PROSECUTION OF
CODE ENFORCEMENT MATTERS - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A15
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR BRIDGEWATER BAY, UNIT ONE -
W/RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A16
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR STERLING OAKS, PHASE 3A - W/RELEASE
OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A17
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR STERLING OAKS, PHASE 4 A/K/A
SANCTUARY POINTE, PHASE 2, DEER CREEK, PHASE 2 -
W/RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A18
Page 251
"""...'"'~.'._-"-'~-_.,"~.-" ....
December 13, 2005
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
TWIN DOLPHINS - W/RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A19
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
ARIELLE AT PELICAN MARSH, PHASE 3 - W/RELEASE OF
THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A20
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR BENT GRASS BEND AT PELICAN MARSH-
W/RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A21
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR HERITAGE GREENS, PHASE 1-A-
W/RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A22
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR HABITAT VILLAGE - W/RELEASE OF THE
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A23
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR GLEN EDEN, PHASE II - W/RELEASE OF
Page 252
--__.. ··""··_H.'___"
.-..~<~.~.~.--....-""".,-,--_..."...,-.-
December 13,2005
THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A24
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR GLEN EDEN LAKES, PHASE 1 - W/RELEASE
OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A25
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR FOREST PARK, PHASE 1 - W/RELEASE OF
THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A26
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR EDEN ON THE BAY - W/RELEASE OF THE
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A27
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
CAPISTRANO AT GREY OAKS - W/RELEASE OF THE
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A28
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR CALUMET RESERVE AT LEL Y RESORT-
W/RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Page 253
--.-
~..--_.~,.,..-,.
December 13, 2005
Item #16A29
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE BIG CORKSCREW
ISLAND FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT, WHICH
WILL SUPERSEDE A PRIOR IMPACT FEE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN ORDER TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE UPDATED DISTRICT FIRE
PROTECTION IMPACT FEES
Item #16A30
PETITION UDP-2004-AR-6872: AGNOLI, BARBER &
BRUNDAGE REPRESENTING BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, INC. FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PLAN (UDP) SUBMITTAL PER
ORDINANCE 92-43 FOR A SHOPPING CENTER. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH AND OLD U.S. 41, FURTHER
DESCRIBED AS TOWNSHIP 48, RANGE 25, SECTIONS 15 AND
16, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 21.1 ±
ACRES - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B1
PAYMENT OF INVOICES TO JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.
FOR THE TIME BETWEEN JUNE 28, 2005 UNTIL OCTOBER
11, 2005 IN THE AMOUNT OF $165,305.21 UNDER ITN
CONTRACT 04-3583 "CEI SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY
ROAD PROJECTS" FOR PROJECT NO. 60018 "IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT FROM COLLIER BLVD. TO 43RD AVE. N.E."
Item #16B2
Page 254
December 13, 2005
CHANGE ORDER #5 TO THE CONTRACT FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BY RWA, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $179,230 FOR THE GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY SIX-LANING DESIGN FROM AIRPORT ROAD TO
SANTA BARBARA BOULEV ARD~ PROJECT NO. 60027
Item #16B3
CHANGE ORDER NO.2 TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
WITH APAC-FLORIDA, INC. FOR INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS OF NEW MARKET ROAD AT CHARLOTTE
STREET IN IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA IN THE AMOUNT OF
$316,972.10. PROJECT NO. 60016, BID NO. 05-3742 - FOR
EXCA VA TION NEEDED TO PREP ARE THE AREA FOR ROAD
CONSTRUCTION
Item #16B4
CHANGE ORDER NO.5 TO CONTRACT NO. #05-3812
"GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD (PRR-VBR) LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION" WITH HANNULA
LANDSCAPING, INC. (PROJECT NO. 601344) IN THE AMOUNT
OF $39,148.24 - PINE RIDGE ROAD TO VANDERBILT BEACH
ROAD WITH A FINAL COMPLETION DATE IS DECEMBER 15,
2005
Item #16C1
CHANGE ORDER TO WORK ORDER NO. AB-040-06-01 WITH
ANGIE BREWER AND ASSOCIATES, L.C. IN THE AMOUNT
OF $70,098.82 UNDER SARASOTA COUNTY CONTRACT NO.
2003-040 FOR STATE REVOLVING FUNDS LOAN
Page 255
December 13,2005
PROCUREMENT SERVICES FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR
THE "SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
PLANT 12 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY REVERSE OSMOSIS
EXPANSION"; PROJECT NUMBER 700971 AND THE
"REHABILITATION OF DEGASIFICATION TOWERS AT
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT",
PROJECT NUMBER 710221
Item #16C2
RATIFY COUNTY MANAGER' S APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY
PURCHASE ORDERS TO HEYWARD INC., MITCHELL AND
STARK CONSTRUCTION CO., AND HOLE MONTES, INC. FOR
THE TOTAL OF $312,700.00 FOR VARIOUS EQUIPMENT AND
SERVICES RELATED TO THE CRITICAL FAILURE OF THE
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE (BLEACH) TANKS AT THE NORTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMA TION FACILITY (NCWRF)
PROJECT NO. 739661 - TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH
REGULATORY PROVISIONS '
Item #16C3
AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO UPGRADE NORTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF)
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE SYSTEM TO MITCHELL AND
STARK INC., UNDER FIXED TERM CONTRACT 04-3535 FOR
$693,154 AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT FOR PROJECT 739661 - TO ENHANCE
RELIABILITY, SAFETY AND ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Page 256
,---. ......" ""<-~"""'.'---."~-.,~.
December 13, 2005
Item #16C4
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. OT060134 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $987,679 AS PARTIAL FUNDING FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT 20-MGD WELLFIELD
EXPANSION, PROJECT NUMBER 708921 - TO PROVIDE FOR
THE NEED OF ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLY DUE TO RAPID
GROWTH
Item #16C5
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. OT060135 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,600,000 AS PARTIAL FUNDING FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT 12-MGD REVERSE OSMOSIS
EXPANSION, PROJECT NUMBER 700971 - TO PROVIDE FOR
THE NEED OF ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLY DUE TO RAPID
GROWTH
Item # 16C6
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. OT060133 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $500,000.00 AS PARTIAL FUNDING FOR THE
NORTH EAST REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 10-
MGD REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) CONSTRUCTION, PROJECT
NUMBER 70902 - TO ADDRESS FUTURE POPULATION
GROWTH DEMANDS
Page 257
December 13, 2005
Item #16C7
RECORD A SATISFACTION OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN
FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE. FISCAL
IMPACT IS $10.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C8
SATISFACTION FOR A CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS
$18.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C9
RESOLUTION 2005-419: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C10
RESOLUTION 2005-420: SA TISF ACTION OF LIEN FOR A
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Page 258
~_,",~.,_.z,,~
December 13,2005
Item #16C11
BID 06-3911 IN THE AMOUNT OF $771,342 TO KYLE
CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FORCE
MAIN ALONG MANATEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 73160 - TO
REPLACE A FAILING FORCE MAIN ALONG MANATEE
ROAD
Item #16D1
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REFLECT AN INCREASE IN
THE AMOUNT OF $9,000 IN THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT
PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA
AGENCY ON AGING - THE CONTRACT PERIOD IS FROM
JANUARY 1,2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2005
Item #16D2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TOTALING $858,416 TO ENSURE
CONTINUOUS FUNDING OF THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT
GRANT FOR 2006 - TO ALLOW FOR UNINTERRUPTED
SUPPORT SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY'S FRAIL AND
ELDERL Y CLIENTS
Item #16D3
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. OT060123 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $100,000 AS PARTIAL FUNDING FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AT NORTH
Page 259
'_.--~""'--
December 13,2005
COLLIER REGIONAL PARK- TO CONSERVE WATER
RESOURCES WHILE MAINTAINING THE HIGHEST QUALITY
PARK FACILITIES AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE COST BY
UTILIZING AVAILABLE GRANTS PROGRAM
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 2005-421: REPEALING ALL PREVIOUS
RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING AND AMENDING PARTS OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR AREAS LICENSE
AND FEE POLICY AND ESTABLISHING THE POLICY ANEW _
TO GENERATE REVENUE SUFFICIENT TO OFFSET
PROGRAM AND FACILITIES COSTS
Item #16D5
AWARD WORK ORDER #WMI-FT-3290-06-03 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $340,080 TO WILSONMILLER, INC. FOR DESIGN
AND PERMITTING OF ORANGETREE PARK - TO EXPAND
THE PARK SYSTEM TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF GROWTH
Item #16D6 - Moved to Item #10G
Item #16D7
AWARD BID #06-3913 TO BERRY'S BARBELL AND
EQUIPMENT, INC AND LIFE FITNESS FOR PURCHASE,
DELIVERY, AND MAINTENANCE OF FITNESS EQUIPMENT
AT AN ESTIMATED FY 06 EXPENDITURE OF $320,000 - TO
FURNISH THE FITNESS CENTER AT NORTH COLLIER
REGIONAL PARK AND ESTABLISH VENDORS FOR
Page 260
"_U_~."""'_.._".." ,,_,.,.~.."""«
December 13, 2005
REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT FOR ALL COUNTY FITNESS
CENTERS
Item #16D8
FORD FLEET TEST BAILMENT CONTRACT WHICH
PROVIDES FOR THE USE OF A VEHICLE TO TRANSPORT
VETERANS TO VA MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS - FOR $10,100
PER YEAR, FOR MAINTENANCE AND INSURANCE COSTS
FOR A CONTRACT PERIOD OF TWO YEARS ENDING IN 2008
Item #16E1
THE RE-ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT NOS. 04-3597 , "DAVIS
BLVD. PHASE II MSTD ROADWAY GROUNDS
MAINTENANCE;" 05-3686 "PART I GOLDEN GATE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU/MSTD ROADWAY GROUNDS
MAINTENANCE AND PART II - RADIO BEAUTIFICATION
MSTU/MSTD ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE;" AND
05-3874 "GOLDEN GATE ANNUAL LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE" FROM ADVANCED LAWN AND
LANDSCAPING SERVICE, INC. TO FRK ENTERPRISES, INC.
DBA ADVANCED LAWN AND LANDSCAPING SERVICE-
RELEASING ADVANCED LAWN AND LANDSCAPING
SERVICE, INC. FROM ANY LIABILITY
Item #16E2
PURCHASE OF VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT, AND TIRES FROM
BID #04-12-0823 ROLLOVER, BID #05-13-0822, BID #05-06-
0823 AND BID #05/6-02-0105 AS COORDINATED BY THE
FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, THE FLORIDA
Page 261
December 13,2005
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, AND THE FLORIDA FIRE
CHIEFS' ASSOCIATION, WHEN IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE COUNTY - EXPENDITURES ARE EXPECTED TO
EXCEED $450,000 IN FY 2006 MAINLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
AMBULANCES
Item #16E3
AMENDMENT #3 TO CONTRACT 04-3576, "CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER AT RISK FOR THE COURTHOUSE ANNEX AND
PARKING GARAGE", WITH KRAFT CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC. RESULTING IN A REDUCTION OF $12,500
TO THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE - RELATING TO
THE PAYMENT OF GAS AND OIL EXPENSES
Item #16E4
REJECTION OF BID NO. 05-3877 LOCKSMITH SERVICES -
DUE TO A NEWLY DEVELOPED CAREER DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM INSTITUTING AN IN-HOUSE LOCKSMITH
PROGRAM
Item #16E5
AWARD RFP NO. 05-3869 "ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE" TO
KONE ELEVATORS AND ESCALATORS FOR ELEVATOR
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR - FOR EXPENSES AVERAGING
$51.000 ANNUALLY
Item #16E6
THE PURCHASE OF GROUP INSURANCE COVERAGE AND
Page 262
. ."...,.-..""..---..",,,-..--
December 13,2005
SERVICES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2006 - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E7
REPORT AND RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS'
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 2004-15 FOR THE FOURTH
QUARTER OF FY 05
Item #16E8
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 31, 2005
THROUGH NOVEMBER 21.2005
Item #16F1 - Moved to Item #10H
Item # 16F2
ACCEPTANCE OF A $1,186 AMERICAN HEART
ASSOCIATION DONATION TO EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS - FOR THE
PURCHASE OF AN AUTOMATED EXTERNAL
DEFIBRILLATOR AND TO REPLACE THE BATTERY PADS OF
AN AED DONATED TO THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY
CENTER
Item #16F3
Page 263
December 13,2005
A SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACT WITH ECIVIS FORA MULTI-
YEAR SUBSCRIPTION TO ECIVIS GRANTS LOCATOR IN THE
AMOUNT OF $101,317 - TO PROVIDE ALL EMPLOYEES
WITH CONSISTENT INFORMATION, ONLINE TRAINING,
NECESSARY GRANT FORMS AND SAMPLE GRANT
APPLICATIONS
Item #16F4
MODIFICATION #2 TO GRANT AGREEMENT #05DS-2N-09-21-
022 BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA
DEP ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS - EXTENDING
THE EXPIRATION DATE, AMENDING THE SCOPE OF WORK
AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Item #16F5
RESOLUTION 2005-422: APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE
NATIONAL RESPONSE PLAN, AND APPROVING AND
MANDATING THAT COLLIER COUNTY SHALL USE THE
NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR ALL
INCIDENT MANAGEMENT IN COLLIER COUNTY - TO
PROVIDE FOR CONSISTENT AND COORDINATED
MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND RESPONSE TO NATURAL
OR MAN-MADE DISASTER INCIDENTS
Item #16F6
(CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 29, 2005 BCC MEETING)
WAIVER OF FORMAL COMPETITION AND ACCEPTANCE OF
A PROPOSAL FROM THE CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA TO PROVIDE SHOREBIRD MONITORING AS
Page 264
December 13, 2005
REQUIRED BY THE FDEP PERMIT FOR CONTRACT 05-3854,
COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT, PROJECT NO.
905271, FOR A COST OF $34,798 - BETWEEN DECEMBER 1,
2005 AND APRIL 1.2006
Item # 16F7
A BUDGET AMENDMENT SEGREGATING FUNDS
COLLECTED FOR BEACH ACCESS/BEACH PARK FACILITIES
FROM FUNDS COLLECTED FOR BEACH
RENOURISHMENT/PASS MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES-
PROVIDING BETTER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION TO
THE BCC, THE CAC AND THE PARKS AND RECREATION
ADVISORY BOARD
Item # 16F8
(CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 29, 2005 BCC
MEETING) WORK ORDER NUMBER CPE-FT -06-06 UNDER
CONTRACT 01-3271 WITH COASTAL PLANNING &
ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION PHASE
ENGINEERING SUPPORT AND SURVEYING FORA NOT-TO-
EXCEED, TIME AND MATERIAL PRICE OF $225,000 FOR THE
CITY OF NAPLES/COUNTY BEACH RE-NOURISHMENT
PROJECT NO. 905271 (CONTRACT NO. 05-3854) AND TO
WAIVE THE $90.000.00 WORK ORDER LIMIT
Item #16F9 - Moved to Item #101
Item #16H1 - Withdrawn
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT FOR
Page 265
.,......_,-~_.-
.__~.m_<"'_ ^ _ __._,_~_"~,.._.^_.·~,>x.,,,_
December 13,2005
HAVING ATTENDED THE 2005 FARM CITY BBQ AT THE
UNIVERSITY EXTENSION OFFICE; $18.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - WHICH WAS
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2005,11:30 A.M. AT
14700 IMMOKALEE ROAD
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT TO
ATTEND THE EDC'S PRE-LEGISLATIVE LUNCHEON ON
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2005, BEGINNING AT 11 :30
A.M. AT THE STRAND COUNTRY CLUB; $50.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT TO
ATTEND THE SOUTHWEST REGIONAL DELEGATION
FORUM - ISSUES '06 ON DECEMBER 16,2005 BEGINNING AT
9:00 A.M. AT FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY; $40.00 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET:
TO LISTEN TO KEYNOTE SPEAKER, THE HONORABLE
THADDEUS COHEN, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DCA
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT TO
ATTEND THE SOUTHWEST REGIONAL DELEGATION
FORUM - ISSUES '06 ON DECEMBER 16,2005 BEGINNING AT
9:00 A.M. AT FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY; $40.00 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL
BUDGET: TO LISTEN TO KEYNOTE SPEAKER, THE
Page 266
December 13, 2005
HONORABLE THADDEUS COHEN, SECRETARY, FLORIDA
DCA
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT TO
ATTEND THE EDC'S PRE-LEGISLATIVE LUNCHEON ON
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2005, BEGINNING AT 11:30
A.M. AT THE STRAND COUNTRY CLUB; $50.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET: TO
PREVIEW THE 2006 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Item# 1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED -
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 267
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
December 13, 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 30, 2005 - November 5,2005.
(2) November 6,2005 - November 12,2005.
(3) November 13,2005 - November 19, 2005.
B. Districts:
(1) Cedar Hammock Community Development District: Agenda and
Minutes of July 11,2005; Proposed Operating and Debt Service Budget
for Fiscal Year 2006.
(2) Quarrv Community Development District: Agenda and Minutes of August
8, 2005; Proposed Operating and Debt Service Budget for Fiscal Year
2006.
(3) South Florida Water Manaqement District: Letter regarding Application
No: 040702-9 (Logan Blvd. Extension); Notice of Public Meeting "lake
Okeechobee Operations" on November 30,2005; Correction to Location
of Public Hearing on December 14, 2005; Notice of Meeting Change
(2006 Florida Forever Work Plan).
C. Minutes:
~1) Collier County Contractors' licensinq Board: Agenda of October 31,
2005.
~2) Collier County Airport Authority: Minutes of Septem~~r 12, 2005.
~3) Ochooee Fire Control District Advisory Board: Minutes of June 20, 2005.
:).-\ T.-\\Melanie\2005 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE\December 13,2005 Mis
.\.',--
(4)
"5)
.6)
(a)
~b)
(1)
'(8)
,9)
(10)
D. Other:
:1 )
(2)
(3)
.
Pelican Bay Services Division: Agenda of November 9, 2005; Agenda of
October 5, 2005; Minutes of October 5, 2005.
('a)
Clam Bav Sub-Committee: Agenda of November 9,2005; Agenda of
September 7, 2005.
.,/
Radio Road BeautificatiorYMSTU: Minutes of October 18, 2005; Agenda
of November 15, 2005; 1\genda of October 18,2005; f'3Iinutes of
September 20, 2005./
Productivity Committee: Minutes of September 21,2005.
Operational Efficiencv and Effectiveness Study Subcommittee:
Minutes of September 14, 2005.
Employee Benefits Subcommittee: Minutes of September 27, 2005.
Collier County Planninq Commission: Revised Agenda of November 3,
2005; Agenda of November 3, 2005; Minutes of September 21 , 2005.
Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of
November 16, 2005; Minutes of October 19,2005 (No quorum).
Collier County Historic and Archaeoloaical Preservation Board: Agenda of
October 19, 2005; Minutes of September 21, 2005.
Bayshore/Gatewav Trianale Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda of October 4, 2005.
October 5,2005 Letter to Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector,
from Chairman Coyle regarding receipt of Errors and Insolvencies Report.
October 11, 2005 Letter to Chairman Coyle from Guy L. Carlton, Collier
County Tax Collector, regarding the 2005 - 2006 Budget Amendment.
October 19, 2005 Letter from Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector,
regarding the 2004-2005 Final Annual Budget Amendment.
H:'DATA\Melanie\2005 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE\December 13,2005 Mis
c.Joc
----~-
December 13,2005
Item #16Jl
THE USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS FOR DRUG
ABUSE EDUCATION AND PREVENTION - $20,000 TO BE
USED FOR DRUG ABUSE EDUCATION AND PREVENTION
Item #16Kl
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NOS. 122,822
AND 922 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
JOHN J. YAKLICH, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2559-CA (GOLDEN
GATE P ARKW A Y PROJECT 60027). (FISCAL IMP ACT
$18,652.00)
Item #16K2
THAT THE COUNTY ASSUME THE DEFENSE OF FREDERICK
GONZALEZ IN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH V. FREDERICK
GONZALEZ, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES,
STATE OF FLORIDA, CASE NO. 2002-0720 ARISING OUT OF
AND DURING THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH
COLLIER COUNTY PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY
RESOLUTION NO. 95-632
Item #16K3
RESOLUTION 2005-423: AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER
COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO
MAKE A LOAN TO NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
PURSUANT TO A MASTER FINANCING AGREEMENT
APPROVED BY THE AUTHORITY AND THE BOARD IN 1997
Page 268
December 13,2005
FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE PURCHASE BY THE
HOSPITAL OF CERTAIN MEDICAL AND OTHER EQUIPMENT
USED BY THE HOSPITAL IN ITS HEALTH CARE
OPERATIONS
Item#17A
ORDINANCE 2005-67: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 93-56, AS
AMENDED, AND CODIFIED IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS
CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE II, WHICH REGULATES AND
CONTROLS ANIMALS WITHIN THE AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 14-34,
PERTAINING TO LICENSE CERTIFICATION AND RABIES
VACCINATIONS FOR DOGS, CATS, AND FERRETS,
INCREASING LICENSE COSTS, AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2005-424: PUDEX-2005-AR-7951, TERYL H.
BRZESKI, REPRESENTED BY J. GARY BUTLER, OF BUTLER
ENGINEERING, INC., IS REQUESTING A 2-YEAR EXTENSION
OF THE PINE RIDGE CORNERS PUD. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 4.22 ACRES, IS LOCATED
NORTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD, 1/6 MILE EAST OF
WHIPPORWILL LANE, IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17C - Moved to Item #8F
Page 269
,..,-,-"....,;". ~. ...--'-,"-...".,. ._,",.,.~.""",
December 13, 2005
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:51 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~w.~
FRED W. COYLE, airman
ATTEST:
,
DWIGHT ij,~ B:RQCK, CLERK
;:,: ('""'~ I: . <",' '. L
~ .: 'f¡t~., .
"'/"'1. '. ..... ....... ,,,)
'~4)' . -., ,,-
Atüst, ..;-~ Ch41,...,.,.
Itgnat... Oft1-
By:
These minutes approved by the Board on l -to - 2JSòf.rJ , as
presented ~ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 270
---